-in- 


THE    PATH 


WHICH    LED 


A  PROTESTANT  LAWYER 


CATHOLIC  CHURCH. 


BY 

PETER   H.    BURNETT. 


•THOU  UAST  MADE  US,  O  LORD,  FOR  THYSELF,  AND  OtTR  HEARTS  AEE    RESTLESS    UNTIL  THEY 

REPOSE  IN  THKE." — St.  Augustine. 


FOURTH  EDITION  — REVISED  BY  THE  AUTHOR. 


NEW  YORK  AND  CINCINNATI: 

B  E  N  Z  I  G  E  R     BROTHERS, 

PRINTERS    TO    THE    HOLY    APOSTOLIC    SEE. 

1872. 


REPLACING 

3L  ^  IS'o  5" 


KNTKRKP,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1359,  bv 

D.  APPLETON   &  COMPANY, 

ID  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the  Southern 
District  of  New  York. 


TO     THE 

MOST  REV.   JOHN   B.  PURCELL, 

ARCHBISHOP    OP    CINCINNATI, 

WHOSE  ARGUMENTS  LAID  THE  FOUNDATION  OF 
MY  CONVERSION  TO  THE  OLD  CHUUCH, 

THIS     WOEK     IS     DEDICATED 
AS   AN  EVIDENCE   OF   THE   GRATITUDE   OF 

HIS     SON    IN 
THE    TRUE    FAITH. 


PREFACE. 


I  WAS  once  a  Protestant,  and  I  became  a  Catholic. 
The  main  reasons  which  led  to  this  change  will  be  found 
substantially  stated  in  the  following  work.  There  are  sev- 
eral topics  that  I  have  not  noticed,  for  want  of  room.  It 
is  also  true,  that  several  authorities  are  referred  to,  that 
were  not  then  read,  and  several  that  I  read  at  the  time 
which  are  not  noticed,  because  not  now  accessible.  My 
quotations  of  Scripture  are  generally  from  King  James's 
translation,  mainly  for  the  reason  that  this  was  the  one 
used  by  me  in  my  pursuit  of  the  true  Church. 

My  parents  were  Baptists ;  but  until  the  age  of  thirty- 
two,  I  was  not  a  believer  in  the  truth  of  Christianity.  My 
own  observation  of  men  and  things,  as  well  as  the  argu- 
ments of  others,  at  length  satisfied  me  that  the  system  was 
divine ;  and  I  at  once  acted  upon  my  convictions,  and 
joined  myself  to  the  Disciples,  in  1840.  In  1843  I  removed 
with  my  family  to  Oregon.  After  my  arrival,  and  while  I 
was  temporarily  located  at  Fort  Vancouver,  I  attended 
High  Mass  as  a  mere  spectator,  on  Christmas,  at  midnight. 
1  had  never  witnessed  any  thing  like  it  before,  and  the  pro- 
found solemnity  of  the  services — the  intense,  yet  calm  fer- 


VI  PREFACE. 

vor  of  the  worshippers — the  great  and  marked  differences 
between  the  two  forms  of  worship — and  the  instantaneous 
reflection,  that- this  was  the  Church  claiming  to  be  the  only 
true  Church,  did  make  the  deepest  impression  upon  my 
mind  for  the  moment.  In  all  my  religious  experience,  I 
had  never  felt  an  impulse  so  profound,  so  touching.  I  had 
witnessed  very  exciting  scenes  in  Protestant  worship,  and 
had  myself  often  participated,  and  was  happy.  But  I  had 
never  felt  any  impulse  so  powerful — an  impulse  that  thrilled 
my  inmost  soul.  I  gazed  into  the  faces  of  the  worshippers, 
and  they  appeared  as  if  they  were  actually  looking  at  the 
Lord  Jesus,  and  were  hushed  into  perfect  stillness,  in  His 
awful  presence. 

But  as  I  knew  nothing  of  the  reasons  upon  which  the 
Catholic  theory  assumes  to  rest,  I  soon  thought  I  saw  errors 
that  I  could  not  sanction.  And  then  there  came  a  painful 
revulsion  in  my  feelings,  as  if  the  flowers  of  Paradise  had 
been  almost  within  ray  reach,  and  had  been  suddenly  with- 
drawn from  sight,  and  I  had  found  it  to  be  but  an  illusion 
and  a  mistake.  But  still  I  can  never  forget  the  holy  im- 
pulses of  my  soul  at  that  deep  moment. 

My  knowledge  of  the  Catholic  theory  was  exceedingly 
general  and  indefinite.  I  had  never  read  a  work  in  its  fa- 
vor, and  had  never  heard  but  two  Catholic  sermons,  and 
they  were  not  upon  controversial  points.  I  knew  that  the 
Old  Church  made  what  are  called  arrogant  and  intolerant 
pretensions ;  but  in  all  my  reading,  in  all  my  intercourse 
with  men  generally,  and  among  my  own  kin,  I  had  scarcely 
ever  met  with  any  thing  in  her  favor.  From  my  limited 
opportunities,  I  had  only  learned  that 

"  To  love  her  was  shame,  to  revile  her  was  glory." 


PREFACE.  Vll 

In  the  fall  of  1844,  a  Baptist  preacher  settled  in  my 
immediate  neighborhood,  who  had  the  published  Debate 
between  Campbell  and  Purcell ;  and  as  the  Catholic  ques- 
tion was  often  mentioned,  and  as  I  knew  so  little  about  it, 
I  borrowed  and  read  the  book.  I  had  the  utmost  confi- 
dence in  the  capacity  of  Mr.  Campbell  as  an  able  debater. 
But  while  the  attentive  reading  of  the  Debate  did  not  con- 
vince me  of  the  entire  truth  of  the  Catholic  theory,  I  was 
greatly  astonished  to  find  that  so  much  could  be  said  in  its 
support.  On  many  points,  and  those  of  great  importance, 
it  was  clear  to  my  mind,  that  Mr.  Campbell  had  been  over- 
thrown. Still,  there  were  many  objections  to  the  Catholic 
Church,  either  not  noticed  by  the  Bishop,  or  not  satisfacto- 
rily  answered ;  and  I  arose  from  the  reading  of  that  discus- 
sion still  a  Protestant. 

But  my  thoughts  continually  recurred  to  the  main  posi- 
tions and  arguments  on  both  sides,  and  the  more  I  reflected 
upon  the  fundamental  positions  of  the  Bishop,  the  more 
force  and  power  I  found  them  to  possess.  My  own  reflec- 
tions often  afforded  me  answers  to  difficulties  that,  at  first, 
seemed  insurmountable,  until  the  question  arose  in  my 
mind,  whether  Mr.  Campbell  had  done  full  justice  to  his 
side  of  the  question.  Many  of  his  positions  seemed  so  ex- 
treme and  ill-founded,  that  I  could  not  sanction  them.  All 
the  prejudices  I  had,  if  any,  were  in  his  favor.  But  I  knew 
that  it  was  worse  than  idle  to  indulge  prejudices  when  in- 
vestigating any  subject  whatever.  I  was  determined  to  be 
true  to  myself ;  and  this  could  only  be  in  finding  the  exact 
truth,  and  following  it,  when  known. 

My  mind  was,  therefore,  left  in  a  state  of  restless  un- 
certainty ;  and  I  determined  to  examine  the  questions  be- 


Vlll  PREFACE. 

tween  Catholics  and  Protestants  thoroughly,  so  far  as  my 
limited  opportunities  and  poor  abilities  would  permit.  In 
the  prosecution  of  this  design,  I  procured  all  the  works,  on 
both  sides,  within  my  reach,  and  examined  them  alter- 
nately, side  by  side.  This  investigation  occupied  all  my 
spare  time  for  about  eighteen  months.  I  observed  substan- 
tially the  course  of  investigation  pointed  out  in  the  intro- 
duction, and  followed  the  rules  of  construction  therein 
given.  Besides  this,  I  prayed  humbly  and  sincerely,  that 
I  might  first  know  the  truth,  and  then  have  the  grace  to 
follow  it  wherever  it  might  lead  me.  I  examined  care- 
fully, prayerfully,  and  earnestly,  until  I  was  satisfied,  be- 
yond a  doubt,  that  the  Old  Church  was  the  true,  and  the 
only  true  Church. 

"And  I  said,  if  there's  peace  to  be  found  in  the  world, 
The  heart  that  was  humble  might  hope  for  it  here." 

And  in  this  I  was  not  mistaken.  I  found  her,  as  holy 
Cyprian  of  old  had  said,  "The  house  of  unity  and  peace." 
I  mean  to  live  and  die  in  her  communion. 


CONTENTS. 


FAGM 

INI-RODUCTION 1 

CHAPTER  I. 

THE   LAW   OP  CHKIST. 

§  1.  The  law  of  Christ  must  form  a  rule  of  moral  conduct  and  a  standard  of 

faith 9 

§  2.  Of  the  different  modes  of  publication,  and  of  the  advantages  of  a  mixed 

code 11 

§  3.  The  same  subject  continued 13 

§4.  Of  Tradition  as  a  medium  of  transmission 14 

§  5.  Of  the  inspiration  and  authenticity  of  the  written  law  of  Christ 17 

§  6.  Of  the  logical  course  of  examination  to  ascertain  the  inspiration  of  the 

authors  of  the  New  Testament 19 

§  7.  Of  the  unwritten  law  of  Christ 22 

§  8.  The  same  matter  further  considered 25 

§  9.  Of  the  Scriptural  view  of  the  written  and  the  unwritten  law 28 

§  10.  Of  the  alleged  incompatibility  of  the  Bible  and  Tradition 32 

§11.  The  true  theory 36 

§  12.  The  testimony  of  the  Ancient  Fathers. 37 

§  13.  Of  the  rules  to  be  observed  in  consulting  the  Fathers 40 

§  14.  Extracts  from  the  Fathers. 43 

§  15.  Concluding  remarks  of  this  chapter 46 

CD  AFTER  II. 

OF   THE    VISIBLE   CHURCH    OF   CHRIST. 

§  1.  The  organization  of  the  visible  Church  must  follow  from  the  character 

of  Christ  as  a  lawgiver 60 


X  CONTENTS. 

PAG* 

§  2.  The  end  and  purpose  of  union  is  rightful  success. 50 

§  3.  There  is  much -more  Infidelity  in  the  world  than  most  teachers  of  Chris- 
tianity helieve 53 

§  4.  Of  the  Scriptural  proofs  that  Christ  did  organize  such  an  institution,  and 

contemplate  such  unity. .  ..  54 

§  5.  Extracts  from  Protestant  writers 57 

§  6.  Extracts  from  a  Catholic  writer. 53 

CHAPTER  HL 

THE  GOVERNING  POWER  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

§  1.  That  a  visible  association  of  men  cannot  continue  to  exist  without 

government 61 

§  2.  Christ  must  have  placed  the  governing  power  somewhere  in  the  Church  62 

§  3.  That  succession  must  exist  of  necessity 65 

§  4.  The  true  office  of  reason 65 

§  5.   Testimony  of  Christ  as  to  the  governing  power  of  the  Church 68 

§  6.  Testimony  of  St.  Paul 70 

§  7.  Further  testimony  of  St.  Paul..... 74 

§  8.  The  powers  of  government  bestowed  upon  the  Apostolical  Church,  con- 
tinuing   78 

§  9.  The  power  to  teach  was  not  personal  to  the  apostles 80 

§  10.  Meaning  of  the  phrase,  "End  of  the  world." 82 

§11.  The  persons  appointed  by  the  apostles  exercised  the  powers  conferred 

by  the  commission 89 

§  12.  The  same  subject  continued 94 

§  13.  Objections  considered 97 

§  14.  Other  objections  considered 101 

§15.  Certain  positions  of  Mr.  Breckenridge  examined 104 

CHAPTER  IV. 

THE   INFALLIBILITY    OF   THE    CHURCH. 

§  1.  All  laws  intended  for  the  government  of  men  should  provide  sorjc  tri- 
bunal to  determine  what  the  law  is 108 

§  2.  Are  these  principles  applicable  to  the  Christian  association? 110 

§  6.  There  is  the  same  necessity  for  such  a  tribunal  in  the  Christian  as  in 

political  government 112 

§  4.  That,  in  reason,  such  tribunal,  when  established,  must  possess  infallibil- 
ity, either  actual  or  judicial,  according  to  the  nature  of  the  system...  114 

§  5.  That  in  political  governments,  judicial  infallibility  is  found 116 

§  6.  That  actual  infallibility  must  be  found  in  the  Christian  association 118 

§  7.  That  the  judicial  power  of  the  Church  must  extend  to  every  violation 

of  the  law....                                                                                           ..  120 


CONTENTS.  XI 

PAGB 

§  8.  The  necessity  of  such  a  tribunal  shown  from  the  true  charactei  of 

Scripture 122 

§9.  The  same  subject  further  considered •  125 

§  10.  Causes  of  obscurity  of  the  Scriptures 128 

§  11.  That  the  right  of  revolution  cannot  exist  in  the  members  of  the 

Church 134 

§  12.  The  duty  of  the  judicial  power 139 

§  13.  The  judicial  power  was  exercised  by  the  Apostolic  Church 143 

§  14.  The  same  judicial  power  still  exists  in  the  Church 148 

§  15.  Scriptural  proofs  of  the  infallibility  of  the  Church  examined 151 

§  16.  The  tribunal  under  the  old  dispensation 161 

§  17.  Objections  considered 165 

§  18.  Another  objection  considered 173 

§  19.  A  passage  from  St.  Peter  examined 176 

§  20.  The  visible  Church  is  but  a  preparatory  institution,  through  which 

men  must  pass  to  reach  the  Church  triumphant  in  heaven 179 

§21.  Is  not  this  theory  intolerant  ? 181 

§  22.  Testimony  of  the  Fathers 185 

CHAPTER  V. 

/ffl   PRIMACY   OP   ST.    FETEB. 

§  1.  The  executive  power  must  exist  in  the  visible  Church 198 

§  2.  The  Scriptural  proofs  of  the  primacy  of  St.  Peter  examined 200 

§  3.  The  Scriptural  proofs  further  considered 207 

§  4.  Objections  considered 215 

§  5.-  Testimony  of  the  Fathers 227 

CHAPTER  VI. 

HAS  GOD,  BY    MIRACLES,  ATTESTED   THE   FAITH    AND   SANCTITY    OF   THE    CATHOLIC 

CHURCH  ? 

§  1.  Preparatory  remarks 231 

§  2.  The  theory  of  the  Infidel 232 

§  3.  Protestant  theories 237 

§  4.  Protestant  theories  further  considered 251 

§  5.  The  Catholic  theory 267 

CHAPTER  VEL 

THESE   BEING    THE   CHARACTERISTICS   OR    MARKS   OF   THE    TRUE   CHTOCfT,    WHICH 
OF  THOSE  CLAIMING   TO  BE   THE  TRUE  CHURCH,  IS,  IN    FACT,  SUCH  ? 

§  1.  Can  the  Protestant  Churches,  singly  or  combined,  be  the  true  Church  ?  273 

§  2.  Have  the  promises  of  Christ  failed  ? . 279 

§  3.  Has  the  Catholic  Church  been  uniform  in  her  faith?.. 283 

§  4.  The  same  subject  continued 288 

§4.  The  same  subject  further  considered 298 


Xll  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  VHI. 

MISCELLANEOUS   OBJECTIONS   EXAMINED. 

PAGB 

§  1.  If  private  interpretation  be  sufficient  for  one  purpose,  is  it  not  for  all  ?  306 

§2.  Is  the  Catholic  rule  impracticable  ? 312 

§3.  The  same  matter  further  considered 318 

§  4.  The  vicious  circle 329 

•§  5.  Can  the  Church  decide  her  own  cases  ? 335 

§  6    Has  the  Church  mutilated  the  Scriptures? 338 

§  7.  The  Church  incapable  of  reformation 339 

§  8.  Wicked  persons  are  sometimes  found  in  the  Catholic  Church 345 

§  9.  That  successors  of  the  apostles  must  be  successors  in  full 349 

CHAPTER  IX. 

CHARGES   AGAINST   THE   JESUITS   AND    CERTAIN   POPES. 

§  1.  Charges  against  the  Jesuits 351 

§  2.  These  charges  examined 356 

§  3.   Charges  against  certain  Popes 367 

§  4.  Could  these  disorders  destroy  the  office  of  Pope? 379 

CHAPTER  X. 

WHAT   HAVE    BEEN   THE    EFFECTS    OF   THE   CATHOLIC  SYSTEM,  IN   THOSE    MEMBERS 
WHO   HAVE   FAITHFULLY  REDUCED   ITS   TEACHINGS   TO   PRACTICE? 

§  1.  The  saints  have  been  found  in  the  Catholic  Church 385 

§  2.  Character  of  the  Reformers 387 

§  3.  The  Catholic  clergy  make  much  greater  sacrifices  than  the  Protestant.  390 

§  4.  The  same  subject  continued 395 

§  5.  The  piety  of  the  different  orders  of  the  Church 400 

§  6.  Contemplative  religion 404 

§  7.  The  active  orders  of  the  Church 410 

§  8.  Charges  against  these  orders  considered 413 

CHAPTER  XI. 

TUB    DOCTRINE    OF    PRIVATE     INTERPRETATION     INCOMPATIBLE   WITH   ALL    UNION 
AND    GOVERNMENT   IN    THE    CHURCH. 

§  1.  The  alleged  right  of  appeal  to  the  Day  of  Judgment 421 

§2.  The  position  of  Luther  at  the  beginning 427 

§  3.  The  ground  assumed  by  Luther 432 

§  4.  The  difficulties  in  using  the  same  doctrines  to  tear  down  an  existing  in- 
stitution, and  to  build  up  another  in  its  stead 440 

§  5.  Protestant  theories  of  the  Church 446 

§  6.  Protestant  ancestors — the  Vaudois 455 

§  7.  The  Bohemian  Brethren 459 

g  8.  The  Albigenses 461 


CONTENTS.  Xl 

PAOH 

§  9.  Reflections 466 

§  10.  Mr.  Campbell's  theory  of  Protestant  succession 470 

§  11.  Mr.  Campbell's  theory  continued. 479 

§  12.  The  new  ground  of  Mr.  Breckenridge * 489 

§  13.  The  theory  of  Bishop  Hoadley  and  Dr.  Balguy 495 

§  14.  Reflections 499 

§  15.  Mr.  Campbell's  theory  of  Protestant  union 502 

§  16.  Dr.  Spring's  theory  of  Protestant  union 508 

§  17.  Reflections , 610 

CHAPTER  XH. 

TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 

§  1.  There  were  two  main  points  in  the  discourse  of  our  Lord 520 

§  2.  The  same  matter  further  considered 527 

§  3.  How  did  the  hearers  of  our  Lord  understand  Him? 531 

§  4.  Did  they  understand  Him  correctly? 532 

§  5.  Exceptions  to  the  rules  deduced  from  our  Lord's  conduct 535 

§  6.  Did  our  Lord  confirm  -the  construction  put  upon  His  words  by  the  Jews  ?  541 

§  7.  Did  His  disciples  understand  Him  in  the  literal  sense? 543 

§  8.  How  did  the  apostles  understand  our  Lord? 547 

§9.  Objections  considered 549 

§  10.  The  words  of  institution 554 

§  11.  The  first  class  of  alleged  exceptions  considered 558 

§  12.  The  second  class  of  alleged  exceptions  considered 560 

§  13.  The  third  class  of  alleged  exceptions  considered 561 

§  14.  Giving  the  name  of  the  thing  represented  to  the  figure 564 

§  15.  The  words  of  St.  Paul 566 

§  16.  That  it  is  a  contradiction  of  our  senses,  and  impossible 569 

§  17.  Reflections 577 

§  18.  Testimony  of  the  Fathers— discipline  of  the  secret 583 

§  19.  Testimony  of  St.  Ignatius 585 

§.20.  Testimony  of  St.  Justin  and  of  St.  Trenaeus 591 

§  21.  Testimony  of  the  Fathers  subsequent  to  the  days  of  Irenaeus 595 

CHAPTER  XIII. 

PENANCE,  PURGATORY,  AND  INDULGENCES. 

§  1.  The  general  nature  of  the  Sacrament  of  Penance 612 

§  2.  Did  Christ  confer  upon  the  apostles  the  powers  to  remit  and  retain  sins  ?  614 

§  3.  Did  these  powers  descend  to  the  successors  of  the  apostles? 618 

§  4.  Views  of  some  Protestant  sects,  and  testimony  of  the  Fathers 625 

§  5.  Satisfaction 631 

§  C.  Purgatory 636 

§  7.   Indulgences 645 


XIV  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

OP   THE   INVOCATION   OF   SAINTS  1    THEIR   RELICS   AND   IMAGES. 

PAGt 

§  1.  The  Invocation  of  Saints 651 

§  2.  The  Blessed  Virgin  Mary 660 

§  3.  Relics  and  Images 670 

§  4.  Testimony  of  the  Fathers 673 

CHAPTER  XV. 

MISCELLANEOUS   CONSIDERATIONS. 

§  1.  General  misrepresentations  of  the  Catholic  doctrines...  f 686 

§  2.  Causes  of  this  system  of  misrepresentation 693 

§  3.  Reflections 700 

§  4.  How  did  these  alleged  errors  get  into  the  Church,  and  when  ? 704 

§  5.  The  same  subject  further  considered.... 712 

§  6.  The  same  subject  still  further  considered 723 

§  7.  The  unity  and  sufferings  of  the  Old  Church. 731 

88.  Conclusion 737 


INTRODUCTION. 

"THE  investigation  of  truth,  the  art  of  ascertaining  that 
which  is  unknown  from  that  which  is  known,"  says  the  profound 
and  philosophic  Starkie,  "  has  occupied  the  attention,  and  con- 
stituted the  pleasure  as  well  as  the  business  of  the  reflecting 
part  of  mankind  in  every  civilized  age  and  country."  (Preface 
to  Starkie  on  Evidence.)  And  this  has  resulted,  not  only  from 
the  ineffable  beauty  of  the  object  sought,  but  also  from  the  tran- 
scendent importance  of  this  knowledge  to  our  happiness.  But 
inquiries  into  truth  can  in  no  case  be  so  important  as  those  that 
relate  to  a  knowledge  of  ourselves,  our  duty,  and  our  destiny ; 
for  the  knowledge  of  those  truths  which  affect  us  in  this  life 
only,  can  bear  no  greater  proportion  to  those  relating  to  our 
future  state,  than  does  the  limited  period  of  human  life  to  eter- 
nity itself. 

To  form  a  clear,  accurate,  and  just  conception  of  a  subject  is 
the  legitimate  end  of  all  fair  and  honest  investigation.  And  no 
end  can  be  attained,  without  the  use  of  proper  means,  and  no 
correct  solution  of  any  question  arrived  at,  but  by  adopting  the 
proper  method.  "  The  human  mind  is  so  limited,"  says  Dr. 
Johnson,  "that  it  cannot  take  in  all  the  parts  of  a  subject;  so 
that  there  may  be  objections  raised  against  any  thing."  This 
being  true  of  our  limited  capacity,  it  is  only  by  confining  our  at- 
tention to  one  particular  at  a  time,  and  carefully  estimating  its 
force,  and  then  passing  to  others  in  succession,  that  we  can  ar- 
rive at  any  clear  conception  of  a  subject.  The  mechanic  who 
constructs  a  chain,  makes  each  link  separately. 

But  it  is  not  only  absolutely  necessary  to  use  the  proper 
means,  and  pursue  the  proper  method,  but  we  should  carefully 
2 


2i  INTRODUCTION. 

remove  all  obstacles  that  may  weaken  the  legitimate  force  of 
any  argument  that  may  be  presented  to  the  mind.  And  nothing 
is  more  important  for  this  purpose  than  calm  impartiality.  All 
prejudices  should  be  manfully  cast  aside,  arid  no  one  should  en- 
ter upon  the  investigation  of  any  subject  with  any  preconceived 
antipathies  against  it.  He  had  better  not  investigate  at  all,  for 
then  he  will  at  least  save  his  labor. 

An  ingenious  mechanist,  seeking  to  invent  a  machine  for  a 
particular  purpose,  enters  upon  his  project  with  a  mind  perfectly 
open  to  conviction.  He  is  ready  to  adopt  a  good  suggestion 
from  any  source.  He  knows  that  all  his  fond  attachments  to  a 
particular  theory,  if  wrong,  will  avail  nothing.  All  the  world 
may  desire  his  success,  and  yet  his  machine  will  not  go.  He  can- 
not force  the  laws  of  nature.  And  equally  inflexible  are  the  laws 
of  truth — they  cannot  be  forced.  And  so  it  must  be  with  the 
inquirer  after  truth.  He  must  be  impartial,  just,  and  deter- 
mined, to  be  successful. 

The  great  art  of  investigation  is  to  begin  at  the  beginning, 
to  keep  our  minds  attentively  fixed,  in  succession,  upon  the  main 
points  in  the  controversy,  (those  essential  elements  that  make 
up  its  very  essence,)  and  then  impartially,  and  with  just  discrim- 
ination, apply  the  leading  principles  of  the  system  to  cases  as 
they  arise.  In  most  controversies,  there  are  certain  great  lead- 
ing and  essential  principles,  either  conceded  by  the  candid  of 
both  parties,  or  satisfactorily  proven,  which,  if  fairly  and  legiti- 
mately carried  out,  will  lead,  by  a  certain  and  sure  process,  to 
the  right  conclusion, 

It  is  a  well-known  fact  to  every  jurist  and  lawyer,  that  al- 
most every  new,  and  at  first  perplexing  case  arising  in  our  courts 
of  justice,  (and  which  are  not  governed  by  statutory  law,)  is 
decided  at  last  by  the  legitimate  extension  and  application  of 
well-known  and  familiar  principles.  The  difficulty  exists  in  the 
extension  and  application  of  the  principle  to  new  predicaments 
of  fact ;  and  the  judge  who  possesses  discrimination  and  impar- 
tiality in  the  highest  degree,  is  most  certain  to  arrive  at  the  cor- 
rect conclusion.  The  power  to  discriminate  between  a  just  and 
a  false  application  of  a  principle  belongs  to  the  highest  order  of 
mind. 

All  the  parts  of  every  system  of  truth  must  be  perfectly  con- 


INTRODUCTION.  3 

sistent  with  each  other.  All  the  facts,  and  series  of  facts  that 
have  existed  at  any  time  from  the  beginning  of  the  world  to  the 
present  age,  were  consistent  and  harmonious  in  every  particu- 
lar. The  existence  of  one  does  not  displace  that  of  another. 
They  no  more  conflict  with  each  other,  than  do  the  stars  of 
heaven.  Each  occupies  its  proper  place  in  the  vast  chain  of  events. 
And  all  the  parts  of  a  true  system,  as  well  as  all  facts,  are  not 
only  thoroughly  consistent  one  with  another,  but  they  all  bear 
a  certain  relation  to  each  other,  more  or  less  intimate.  As  all 
the  events  that  ever  did  occur  were  connected  with  certain  other 
events — with  some  as  their  causes,  with  others  as  their  effects — 
so,  all  the  truths  of  a  true  system  are,  in  the  same  way,  connect- 
ed with  each  other.  If,  then,  in  the  investigation  of  a  certain  sys- 
tem, we  can  find  its  leading  principle,  by  a  patient  and  honest 
application  and  extension  of  this  principle  we  shall  be  led,  step 
by  step,  to  the  discovery  of  other  principles,  and  finally  be  ena- 
bled to  arrive  at  the  whole  truth. 

Language  is  but  a  medium  through  which  a  writer  or  speak- 
er conveys  to  his  readers  or  hearers,  such  of  the  ideas  existing 
in  his  own  mind  as  he  intends  to  communicate  to  them.  The 
character  of  this  medium,  which  is  simply  artificial  and  arbitrary, 
is  fixed  by  the  existing  usage  at  the  precise  time  the  words  are 
written  or  spoken.  This  usage  may  give  to  words  a  figurative 
or  literal  meaning. 

The  object  of  every  fair  writer  or  speaker  is  to  place,  in  the 
minds  of  others,  an  exact  copy  of  his  own  thoughts.  In  doing 
this,  he  naturally  selects  words  and  phrases  best  adapted,  in  his 
opinion,  to  accomplish  the  end  intended.  If  the  writer  or  speak- 
er understands  the  existing  usages  of  the  language  he  employs 
as  a  medium  of  thought,  he  selects  those  terms  which  will  most 
accurately  convey  his  true  meaning  to  others.  For  this  reason, 
the  construction  put  upon  the  words  of  a  writer  or  speaker  by  his 
contemporaries,  is  generally  the  correct  one.  There  are  excep- 
tions to  this  general  rule,  for  the  meaning  may  be  misappre- 
hended; but  these  exceptions  are  special  cases,  to  be  judged  by 
the  special  circumstances  of  each  particular  case. 

The  philosophic  author  of  Hermes,  as  cited  by  Dr.  Wiseman 
in  his  lectures  upon  the  Real  Presence,  has  expressed  his  views 
upon  this  subject  in  the  following  beautiful  terms: 


i  INTRODUCTION. 

"  For  what  is  conversation  between  man  and  man  ?  'Tis  a 
mutual  intercourse  of  speaking  and  hearing.  To  the  speaker, 
'tis  to  teach ;  to  the  hearer,  'tis  to  learn.  To  the  speaker,  'tis 
to  descend  from  ideas  to  words;  to  the  hearer,  'tis  to  ascend 
from  words  to  ideas.  If  the  hearer  in  this  ascent  can  arrive  at 
no  ideas,  then  he  is  said  not  to  understand :  if  he  ascends  to 
ideas  dissimilar  and  heterogeneous  from  the  speaker's,  then  he 
is  said  to  misunderstand.  What  then  is  requisite  that  he  may 
be  said  to  understand  ?  That  he  should  ascend  to  certain  ideas 
treasured  up  within  himself  correspondent  and  similar  to  those 
within  the  speaker.  The  same  may  be  said  of  a  writer  and 
reader." 

1.  The  construction  should  be  upon  the  entire  Scriptures,  taken 
and  construed  together,  so  as  to  give  force  and  effect  to  all 


The  rule  at  law  for  the  construction  of  statutes  and  written 
instruments,  is  substantially  the  same,  with  one  exception,  which 
will  be  stated  in  its  proper  place. 

"  One  part  of  a  statute  must  be  so  construed  by  another,  that 
the  whole  may  (if  possible)  stand.  (1  Blackstone's  Com.,  89.) 

"  It  is  an  established  rule  in  the  exposition  of  statutes,  that 
the  intention  of  the  lawgiver  is  to  be  deduced  from  a  view  of 
the  whole,  and  of  every  part  of  a  statute,  taken  and  compared 
together."  (1  Kent's  Com.,  461.) 

"The  construction  ought  to  be  upon  the  entire  deed,  and 
not  on  any  particular  part  of  it.  And  such  construction  should 
be  given,  that,  if  possible,  every  part  of  the  deed  may  be  opera- 
tive." (16  Johnson's  N.  Y.  Reports,  172.) 

The  reasons  for  this  sensible  rule  are  very  simple.  It  is  pre- 
sumed that  the  lawmaker  intended  something  by  each  and  every 
provision  of  the  statute,  and  that  he  also  intended  to  be  consist- 
ent with  himself.  But  as  a  mere  human  legislator  may,  and 
often  does,  contradict  himself,  the  courts  will  only  give  force  and 
effect  to  the  different  provisions  so  far  as  possible.  Such  a  lim- 
itation will  not  apply  to  the  divine  law,  which  is  consistent,  and 
not  contradictory.  Of  course,  this  observation  will  apply  only 
to  doctrines,  as  contradistinguished  from  a  simple  narrative  of 
facts.  In  the  four  Gospels  there  are  some  unimportant  contra- 


INTRODUCTION.  5 

dictions  in  the  narrative  of  facts,  constituting  a  mere  "  circum- 
stantial variety." 

There  are  many  examples  in  the  Scriptures  which  show  the 
necessity  and  propriety  of  this  rule.  In  one  place  we  are  sub- 
stantially told  that  we  are  saved  by  keeping  the  commandments — 
in  another,  by  grace — in  another,  by  the  blood  of  Christ — in  an- 
other, by  baptism — in  another,  by  faith.  These  different  pro- 
visions are  not  at  all  in  conflict  with  each  other,  and  may,  there- 
fore, be  so  construed  together  as  to  give  force  and  effect  to  all. 
The.  correct  construction  would  be,  that  we  are  saved  by  the 
agency  of  all  these  requisites  taken  together. 

The  violation  of  this  fundamental  rule  has,  perhaps,  led  to 
more  errors  than  any  other.  We  have  a  notable  instance  in  the 
temptation  of  our  Lord  by  Satan,  when  he  said : 

"  If  thou  be  the  Son  of  God,  cast  thyself  down  ;  for  it  is 
written,  He  shall  give  his  angels  charge  concerning  thee,  and  in 
their  hands  they  shall  bear  thee  up,  lest  at  any  time  thou  dash 
thy  foot  against  a  stone." 

This  proposition  was  very  acutely  made,  and  the  quotation 
to  sustain  it  seemed  very  appropriate.  But  the  poor  devil  had 
forgotten  that  another  passage  of  Scripture  must  also  be  con- 
strued with  it,  and,  consequently,  his  learning  was  completely 
put  down  by  the  reply  of  our  Lord :  "  It  is  written  again,  Thou 
shalt  not  tempt  the  Lord  thy  God." 

2.  All  the  texts  relating  to  the  same  subject  must  be  considered 
as  written  by  the  same  person,  having  a  perfect  knowledge  of 
all  that  had  been  written  before,  the  reader  making  a  fair 
allowance  for  the  difference  in  the  style  of  each  writer,  and 
the  different  character  of  the  existing  circumstances. 

The  rule  of  law  which  requires  all  statutes  relating  to  the 
same  subject,  though  passed  at  different  times,  to  be  taken  and 
construed  together,  is  substantially  similar  to  the  above  rule. 
Tke  rule  at  law  is  based  upon  the  presumption  that  the  law- 
giver was  competent,  and  therefore  acquainted  with  the  state 
of  the  law  as  it  existed  at  the  passage  of  the  act,  and  had  the 
previous  laws  in  his  mind  when  framing  the  statute. 

"  These  laws  being  in  pari  materia,  and  referred  to  in  the 
one  giving  us  jurisdiction,  must  be  taken  as  one  law."  (6  Peters, 
720;  see,  also,  1  Kent,  483.) 


6  INTRODUCTION. 

The  framers  of  statutes  may  be,  and  are  sometimes,  ignorant 
of  the  existing  state  of  the  law ;  and  this  fact  may  possibly 
render  the  rule  subject  to  exceptions  in  special  cases.  But  the 
rule  I  have  laid  down  in  reference  to  the  proper  construction  of 
Scripture  is  not  subject  to  such  exceptions.  The  whole  having 
been  dictated  by  the  same  infallible  Spirit,  must  be  held  equally 
entitled  to  our  confidence.  The  prima  facie  presumption  of 
competency  in  a  human,  becomes  conclusive  when  applied  to  a 
Divine  Lawgiver. 

3.  Words  of  unlimited  meaning  are  yet  to  be  restricted  by  the 

general  scope  and  intent  of  the  system. 

Among  the  examples  to  be  found  in  the  Scriptures,  coming 
within  this  rule,  it  will  be  sufficient  to  mention  the  one  found  in 
the  sixteenth  chapter  of  St.  John's  Gospel,  where  our  Lord  tells 
His  disciples  that  "  when  he,  the  Spirit  of  Truth,  is  come,  he 
will  teach  you  all  truth.''  The  phrase  all  truth  is  exceedingly 
broad,  yet  it  must  be  restrained  by  the  general  scope  and  intent 
of  the  system  Christ  came  to  establish.  It  was  no  part  of  His 
system  to  teach  mere  truths  of  science.  The  latter  class  of 
truths  cannot  be  embraced  in  the  phrase  all  truth. 

This  rule  is  founded  in  the  principles  of  sound  interpretation. 
At  law  it  is  substantially  the  same.  A  statute  may  contain  very 
broad  and  sweeping  terms,  and  yet  they  are  restrained  to  the 
scope  and  intent  of  the  act.  (2  Con.  Rep.,  221.)  So  the  pro- 
visions of  the  seventh  amended  article  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  which,  in  general  terms,  secures  the  right  of  trial 
by  jury,  in  all  cases  where  the  matter  in  controversy  exceeds 
the  sum  of  twenty  dollars,  is  confined  to  trials  in  the  Federal 
tribunals,  and  does  not  prevent  the  States  from  restricting  the 
right  of  trial  by  jury  to  controversies  involving  a  larger  sum 
than  twenty  dollars. 

4.  When  a  general  principle  is  laid  down  in  general  terms,  and 
without  exceptions  stated  at  the  time,  or  in  any  other  por 
tions  of  the  Scriptures,  it  must  be  taken  in  its  widest  sense 
compatible  with  the  general  scope  and  intent  of  the  system. 

It  is  the  practice  of  all  lawgivers  to  state  general  principles 
embracing  a  whole  class  of  cases,  in  general  terms,  and  then  to 


INTRODUCTION  < 

state  the  exceptions  to  the  general  principle  specially.  The 
form  or  manner  of  the  statement  of  these  exceptions  is  not  at  all 
material.  They  are  often  stated  expressly  as  exceptions,  and 
defined  to  be  such  ;  but  they  are  often  stated  simply  as  special 
provisions  in  reference  to  special  cases,  without  any  express 
statement  that  they  are  express  exceptions.  In  either  case  thoy 
limit  the  meaning  of  the  general  clause.  There  are  some  prin- 
ciples embracing  all  cases,  and  without  exception  ;  while  there 
are  other  principles  that  embrace  only  a  great  majority  of  cases, 
and  are,  therefore,  subject  to  some  exceptions.  In  regard  to 
the  latter  class  of  principles,  it  is  matter  of  convenience  to  first 
state  the  general  principle  in  general  terms,  and  then  after- 
wards to  state  the  exceptions  specially.  We  will  suppose  that 
the  general  principle  would  embrace  ninety-eight  out  of  each 
hundred  cases.  It  would  then  be  very  difficult  to  state  each  of 
the  ninety-eight  cases  separately,  while  it  would  be  easy  to  state 
the  two  cases  as  exceptions. 

5.  When  suck  exceptions  to  the  general  rule  are  stated  in  any 
part  of  the  Scriptures,  they  are  to  be  taken  out  of  the  opera- 
tion of  the  general  principle  as  exceptions,  leaving  the  gen- 
eral principle  to  govern  all  other  cases  coming  fairly  within 
its  import. 

This  rule  is  properly  but  a  branch  of  the  fourth  rule,  but 
will  be  found  useful  in  practice.  Both  these  rules  are  substan- 
tially the  same  as  those  applied  in  similar  cases  at  law.  There 
are  often  general  statutes  passed,  embracing  a  great  many  cases, 
and  yet  liable  to  exceptions.  These  exceptions  are  often  stated 
in  the  body  of  the  act  as  exceptions — they  are  often  stated  in 
the  same  act,  but  not  in  the  form  of  exceptions,  but  as  provis- 
ions for  particular  cases,  and  they  are  often  found  in  separate 
acts  relating  to  special  cases,  which  would  otherwise  come  within 
the  general  principle.  These  special  acts,  as  a  general  thing, 
have  no  express  reference  to  the  general  act,  but  their  provis- 
ions in  their  very  nature  are  special,  and  must  be  taken  out  of 
the  general  principle,  because  they  conflict  with  it.  To  state  a 
case  in  point :  There  was  a  general  act  passed  by  the  Legisla- 
ture, regulating  the  Practice  at  Law.  In  this  act  there  was  a 
general  provision  requiring  all  process  to  be  served  upon  the 


8  INTRODUCTION. 

defendant  by  reading  the  same  to  him.  There  were  many  dif- 
ferent forms  of  action,  and  in  reference  to  one  form  of  action, 
"  Petition  in  Debt,"  there  was  a  special  act,  and  a  clause  in  this 
act  requiring  the  process  to  be  served  by  delivering  a  copy 
of  the  writ  to  the  defendant.  There  was  no  express  reference 
in  this  special  act  to  the  general  Practice  Act,  and  yet  there 
was  no  doubt  as  to  the  correct  construction.  In  "  Petition  in 
Debt "  the  process  had  to  be  served  by  copy,  and  in  all  the  other 
cases  by  reading. 

Among  similar  examples  in  Scripture,  it  will  be  sufficient  to 
mention  one  or  two  as  illustrative  of  these  two  rules.  It  is  said 
that  we  are  saved  through  the  merits  of  Christ.  This  is  a  gen- 
eral principle  without  any  exception.  Again,  it  is  said  that 
"  all  things  are  possible  with  God,"  but  St.  Paul  says  that  "  God 
cannot  lie."  This  is  a  case  of  exception  to  the  general  rule. 
"  Ask,  and  you  shall  receive."  "  You  do  not  receive,  because 
you  ask  amiss." 

6.  The  natural,  simple,  and  literal  construction  is  to  be  pre- 
ferred, unless  there  be  something,  either  in  express  words  or 
in  the  context,  to  show  a  figurative  meaning. 

The  rule  at  law  is  substantially  the  same. 

"  The  words  of  a  statute,"  says  the  learned  Commentator  on 
American  Law,  "  are  to  be  taken  in  their  natural  and  ordinary 
signification  and  import ;  and  if  technical  words  are  used,  they 
are  to  be  taken  in  a  technical  sense."  (l  Kent,  463.) 

The  rule  I  have  laid  down  is  evidently  founded  upon  the 
grounds  of  reason  and  experience.  That  construction  which  is 
most  obvious,  simple,  and  natural,  is  generally  the  most  correct 
in  reference  to  any  writer ;  and  before  this  rule  should  be  de- 
parted from,  there  should  exist  good  reasons  for  such  a  depart- 
ure. As  every  writer  and  speaker  is  supposed,  in  simple  jus- 
tice to  himself,  his  subject,  and  his  readers  or  hearers,  to  select 
the  most  natural  and  simple  terms,  so  the  general  rule  must  be 
in  accordance  with  that  presumption. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE     LAW     OF      CHRIST. 

§  1.  The  law  of  Christ  must  form  a  rule  of  moral  conduct,  and 
a  standard  of  faith. 

THE  learned  Commentator  on  the  laws  of  England  defines 
municipal  law  to  be,  "  A  rule  of  civil  conduct,  prescribed  by  the 
supreme  power  in  a  State,  commanding  what  is  right,  and  pro- 
hibiting what  is  wrong." 

When  the  learned  Commentator  says,  "  Commanding  what  is 
right,  and  prohibiting  what  is  wrong,"  he  means,  as  judged  by 
the  theory  of  municipal  law,  of  which  he  was  speaking.  As 
judged  by  the  theory  of  civil  government,  and  not  by  the  law 
of  God,  or  of  abstract  justice,  the  civil  law  always  commands 
what  is  right,  and  prohibits  what  is  wrong. 

As  the  civil  law  is  often  unjust,  when  judged  by  the  princi- 
ples of  morality,  the  law-making  power  in  political  government 
could  not  rightfully  require  us  to  believe  its  enactments  just. 
And  as  no  power  in  such  a  government  can  know  the  thoughts 
and  intents  of  the  mind,  unless  manifested  .by  outward  signs, 
the  civil  law  could  only  place  crime  in  action.  No  mere  inten 
tion,  however  wicked,  can  constitute  a  crime  under  this  theoi;y. 
The  intention  is  only  one  of  the  ingredients  of  crime.  And  as 
the  civil  law  leaves  belief  and  intention  untouched,  it  could 
never  form  a  moral  code.  It  lacks  the  wisdom,  power,  and  jus- 
tice required ;  and  must,  therefore,  be  exceedingly  imperfect  in 
these  respects.  All  that  the  law  of  the  land  can  rightfully  re- 
quire us  to  do,  is  to  comply  with  its  provisions  by  our  acts. 
3 


10  THE   LAW    OF   CHRIST. 

But  the  infirmities  necessarily  incident  to  human  legislation 
are  not  found  in  the  law  of  God.  That  sublime  code  can  right- 
fully  require  us  to  believe  all  its  provisions  to  be  just,  because 
they  are  so,  in  point  of  fact ;  and  we  are  only  required  to  be- 
lieve that  which  we  may  know  is  unerringly  true.  And  for  the 
very  reason  that  a  fallible  lawgiver  could  not  rightfully  assume 
to  govern  faith  and  intention,  an  infallible  lawgiver  should  regu- 
late both ;  otherwise,  they  would  be  left  without  government. 
And  if  faith  and  intention  be  left  without  control,  there  can  be 
no  pure  morality,  and  no  perfect  obedience.  The  wicked  inten 
tion  is  the  first  element  of  moral  wrong.  To  hold  a  free  agent 
responsible  for  this  first  voluntary  act,  is  the  most  efficient,  and 
for  that  reason,  the  most  merciful  rule.  To  teach  the  party 
governed,  that  he  is  responsible  for  his  evil  thoughts  and  crimi- 
nal intentions,  is  to  check  vice  in  its  inception.  So,  to  teach 
him  that  he  must  believe  the  truth  is  to  secure  his  love  and 
reverence  for  it,  and  his  more  ready  and  hearty  obedience  to  it ; 
for  obedience  will  always  be  more  faithful  to  a  law  believed  to 
be  just  in  itself,  than  to  one  whose  justice  is  disputed. 

We  may  safely  conclude,  that  whatever  revelation  God 
made  to  man,  must  have  been  just  and  true;  and  if  just,  it 
must,  for  that  reason,  constitute  a  rule  of  moral  conduct ;  and 
if  true,  it  must,  for  that  reason,  be  believed.  A  perfect  law  in 
every  particular,  has  a  right  to  demand  our  perfect  obedience, 
in  thought,  belief,  and  act.  It  is  reasonable  that  an  Infinite  law- 
giver, like  any  other  just  legislator,  should  be  just  to  Himself, 
as  well  as  to  others;  and  for  that  reason,  should  have  some  eye 
to  His  own  rights,  and  the  respect  due  to  His  real  character. 

The  human  legislator  prescribes  his  law,  and  says  to  the 
party  governed  :  "  I  have  given  you  the  best  law  I  could  ;  but 
it  is  still  imperfect.  I  do  not,  therefore,  ask  you  to  believe  it 
just;  and  if  I  did,  my  limited  powers  would  not  enable  me  to 
reach  your  thoughts  and  intentions.  But  as  the  good  of  society 
imperiously  requires  government,  and  government  must,  of  ne- 
cessity, require  obedience,  you  must  obey  my  law  in  act,  what- 
ever you  may  believe  and  intend."  But  an  Infinite  lawgiver 
holds  a  different  language,  and  says :  "  My  statutes  are  just 
and  true  in  every  particular.  I,  therefore,  require  you  to  think 
right,  intend  right,  and  act  right ;  and  I  have  tho  right,  the 


THE   LAW    OF   CHRIST.  11 

knowledge,  and  the  power,  to  enforce  obedience  in  all  these 
particulars." 

§  2.    Of  the  different  modes  of  publication,  and  of  the  advan* 
tages  of  a  mixed  code. 

The  laws  governing  any  associated  body  of  men,  either 
civil  or  ecclesiastical,  may  be  promulgated  in  different  ways ; 
and,  therefore,  may  be  either  written  or  oral,  or  partly  written 
and  partly  traditional.  "But  the  manner,"  says  Blackstone, 
"in  which  this  notification  is  to  be  made,  is  matter  of  very  great 
indifference.  It  may  be  notified  by  universal  tradition  and  long 
practice,  which  supposes  a  previous  publication,  as  is  the  case  of 
the  common  law  of  England.  It  may  be  notified,  viva  voce,  by 
officers  appointed  for  that  purpose,  as  is  done  with,  regard  to 
proclamations,  and  such  acts  of  parliament  as  are  appointed  to 
be  publicly  read  in  churches  and  other  assemblies.  It  may 
lastly  be  notified  by  writing,  printing,  or  the  like ;  which  is 
the  general  course  taken  with  all  our  acts  of  parliament." 
(1  Com.,  46.) 

As  language,  whether  oral  or  written,  is  still  but  a  sign  or 
medium,  by  and  through  which  one  intelligence  communicates 
ideas  to  another,  the  character  of  the  law  itself  is  not  affected 
by  the  mere  manner  of  its  publication.  The  will  of  the  legislator 
exists  without  any  regard  to  the  mode  of  publication ;  and  the 
publication  is  only  evidence  of  that  will.  The  different  modes 
of  publication  only  constitute  different  kinds  of  evidence  to 
prove  the  will  of  the  legislator.  The  thing  to  be  proven  is,  in 
all  cases,  the  same. 

These  two  modes  of  publication  have  each  their  respective 
advantages.  A  written  code  is  more  concise  and  portable,  while 
a  traditional  code  is  more  full  and  complete.  A  mixed  code 
combines  the  advantages  of  both,  and  is  most  preferable  in  prac- 
tice. The  two  parts  of  a  mixed  code  mutually  explain  and  il 
lustrate  each  other. 

The  municipal  law  of  England  is  divided  into  two  kinds,  the 
unwritten,  or  common  law,  and  the  written,  or  statute  law.  (1 
Blackstone's  Com.,  62.)  The  States  of  our  Union,  with  one  ex- 
ception, have  adopted  the  common  law,  and  have,  therefore, 


12  THE   LAW   OF   CHRIST. 

mixed  codes  of  jurisprudence.  And  in  speaking  of  the  unwrit- 
ten law,  the  learned  commentator  on  the  laws  of  England  says  : 
"  I  would  not  be  understood  as  if  all  those  laws  were  at  pres- 
ent merely  oral,  or  communicated  from  the  former  ages  to  the 
present  solely  by  word  of  mouth.  But  with  us  at  present,  the 
monuments  and  evidences  of  our  legal  customs  are  contained  in 
the  records  of  the  several  courts  of  justice,  in  books  of  reports 
and  judicial  decisions,  and  in  the  treatises  of  learned  sages  of  the 
profession,  preserved  and  handed  down  to  us  from  the  times  of 
highest  antiquity.  However,  I,  therefore,  style  these  parts  of 
our  law  legis  non  scripta,  because  their  original  institution  and 
authority  are  not  set  down  in  writing,  as  acts  of  parliament  are." 
(1  Com.,  64.) 

"  But  here  a  very  natural  and  a  very  material  question 
arises,"  says  the  same  learned  commentator,  "  how  are  these 
customs  or  maxims  to  be  known,  and  by  whom  is  their  validity 
to  be  determined  ?  The  answer  is,  by  the  judges  in  the  several 
courts  of  justice.  They  are  the  depositaries  of  the  laws,  the  liv- 
ing oracles,  who  must  decide  in  all  cases  of  doubt,  and  who  are 
bound  by  an  oath  to  decide  according  to  the  law  of  the  land.  * 
*  And,  indeed,  these  judicial  decisions  are  the 
principal  and  most  authoritative  evidence  that  can  be  given  of 
the  existence  of  such  a  custom  as  shall  form  a  part  of  the  com- 
mon law.  The  judgment  itself,  and  all  the  proceedings  previous 
thereto,  are  carefully  registered  and  preserved,  under  the  name 
of  records,  in  public  repositories  set  apart  for  that  particular 
purpose ;  and  to  them  frequent  recourse  is  had  when  any  criti- 
cal question  arises,  in  the  determination  of  which,  former  pre- 
cedents may  give  light  or  assistance.  *  *  *  For  it 
is  an  established  rule  to  abide  by  former  precedents  when 
the  same  points  come  again  in  litigation ;  as  well  to  keep  the 
scales  of  justice  even  and  steady,  and  not  liable  to  waver  with 
every  new  judge's  opinion,  as  also  because  the  law  in  that  case 
being  solemnly  declared  and  determined,  what  before  was  un- 
certain, and  perhaps  indifferent,  is  now  become  a  permanent 
rule,  which  it  is  not  in  the  breast  of  any  subsequent  judge  to 
alter  or  vary  from,  according  to  his  private  sentiments ;  he  be- 
ing sworn  to  determine,  not  according  to  his  own  private  judg- 
ment, but  according  to  the  known  laws  and  customs  of  the  land  ; 


THE    LAW    OF    CHRIST.  13 

not  delegated  to  pronounce  a  new  law,  but  to  maintain  and  ex- 
pound the  old  one.  Yet  this  rule  admits  of  exception,  when  the 
former  decision  is  most  evidently  contrary  to  reason ;  much 
more  if  it  be  clearly  contrary  to  the  divine  law.  But  even  in 
such  cases,  the  subsequent  judges  do  not  pretend  to  make  a  new 
law,  but  to  vindicate  the  old  one  from  misrepresentation."  (1 
Com.,  69.) 

§  3.  The  same  subject  continued. 

To  those  who  are  engaged  in  the  practical  administration  of 
the  law,  the  advantages  of  a  mixed  system  will  become  apparent. 
A  written  code  can  only  conveniently  embrace  the  leading  prin- 
ciples of  a  system,  expressed  in  general  terms.  It  cannot  be  so 
full  or  complete  as  the  unwritten  law.  In  the  application  of  a 
written  system  to  particular  cases,  where  it  is  not  aided  and  il- 
lustrated by  the  unwritten  law,  the  difficulties  would  seem  to 
be  great.  It  is  very  doubtful  whether  any  complete  system  of 
written  law,  suited  to  the  various  wants  of  a  civilized  people, 
could  be  formed  and  practically  put  in  operation,  without  the  aid 
of  the  unwritten  law.  It  would  necessarily  be  either  so  concise 
as  to  be  defective,  in  omitting  necessary  provisions,  or  so  volumi- 
nous and  minute,  as  to  become  inconvenient  for  ordinary  cases. 

It  must  be  obvious  to  those  who  have  well  considered  the 
nature  of  all  laws  intended  for  the  government  of  men,  that  a 
comprehensive  principle  may  be  adopted  in  a  very  concise  form, 
and  yet  embracing  a  great  number  of  cases  under  it ;  or  the 
legislator  may  himself  extend  the  principle  out  into  its  various 
ramifications,  so  as  to  show  its  application  to  difterent  classes 
of  cases.  In  the  first  instance,  his  law  will  be  very  brief  in  form, 
while  in  the  second,  it  will  be  very  full.  But  whether  the  law- 
maker adopt  the  concise  or  more  detailed  mode  of  enactment, 
or  a  combination  of  both,  the  result  must  be  substantially  the 
same  in  the  end,  or  injustice  must  be  done  to  the  parties  gov- 
erned. Their  wants  are  still  the  same,  and  those  wants  must  be 
provided  for,  either  by  the  law  itself  in  full,  or  by  the  construc- 
tion of  the  courts.  The  particular  cases  must  be  decided  either 
by  the  specific  provisions  of  the  law,  or  by  the  extension  of  con- 
cisely expressed  general  principles  by  the  judgment  of  the  courts. 
Laws,  as  a  general  rule,  can  only  lay  down  general  principles, 


14  THE   LAW    OF   CHRIST. 

expressed  in  general  terms  ;  and  one  general  principle  may  em 
brace  a  number  of  subordinate  principles  legitimately  flowing 
from  it.  The  subordinate  principles,  when  not  developed  in 
the  law  itself,  must  be  discovered  and  applied  by  the  courts ; 
otherwise  there  is  a  defect  of  justice.  If,  Then,  a  written  code 
be  adopted,  and  the  unwritten  law  excluded,  the  judges  will 
•find  it  more  difficult  to  practically  administer  such  a  system,  and 
they  will  be  forced,  either  to  pass  by  wrongs  without  a  remedy, 
or  they  must  take  the  responsibility  of  extending  the  principles 
of  the  statute  to  doubtful  cases. 

It  would  seem  to  be  exceedingly  difficult,  in  the  nature  of 
things,  to  adopt  an  entire  written  code  that  will  be  sufficiently 
full  and  complete,  so  as  to  embrace  all  the  cases  demanding  re- 
lief under  civil  government.  It  is  by  a  combination  of  the  two 
parts  of  written  and  unwritten  law  that  the  most  just,  complete, 
and  convenient  code  can  be  formed.  The  statute  law  will  then 
embrace  all  new  changes,  and  also  the  more  ordinary,  every-day 
provisions,  while  the  unwritten  law  will  contain  the  more  mi- 
nute provisions  necessary  to  be  applied  in  critical  cases.  The 
Romans,  Spaniards,  and  Swedes  had  a  common  law.  (1  Black- 
stone's  Com.,  66,  74.) 

As  illustrative  of  this  view  I  may  refer  to  the  experiment 
made  in  France. 

"  Though  the  French  codes,"  says  Chancellor  Kent,  "  di- 
gested under  the  revolutionary  authority,  are  distinguished  for 
sententious  brevity,  there  are  numerous  volumes  of  French  re- 
ports already  extant  upon  doubtful  and  difficult  questions,  aris- 
ing within  a  few  years  after  those  codes  were  promulgated." 
(1  Kent's  Com.,  468.) 

The  learned  American  commentator  states,  in  a  note,  that 
these  reports  had  amounted,  in  1818,  to  fifty  volumes  and  up- 
wards, and  that  "  from  the  time  of  the  French  revolution  down 
to  1828,  there  were  over  one  hundred  volumes  of  statutory  law 
made  in  France." 

§  4.   Of  tradition  as  a  medium  of  transmission. 

It  has  been  often  objected  that  tradition  is  an  unsafe  medium 
of  transmission ;  and  those  who  urge  this  objection  usually  illus- 
trate it  by  referring  to  the  uncertain  nature  of  general  reports, 


THE   LAW    OP  CHKIST.  15 

circulating  in  a  community.  That  tradition  is  an  uncertain  me- 
dium of  transmission  when  used  for  the  preservation  of  unim- 
portant matters,  in  which  no  one  is  particularly  interested,  is 
true ;  and  it  is  apprehended  that  writing  would  not  be  sufficient 
to  perpetuate  the  memory  of  that  which  no  one  cared  to  pre- 
serve. Besides  this,  such  unimportant  matters  are  not  commit- 
ted to  any  particular  depositary — no  one  is  specially  charged 
with  their  preservation  and  safe  transmission. 

But  such  is  not  the  case  with  regard  to  laws.  They  are 
matters  too  deeply  important  to  be  neglected  or  forgotten,  for 
the  reason  that  they  not  only  regulate  the  dearest  interests  of 
society,  but  they  are  of  daily  application,  and  competent  tribu- 
nals are  made  the  depositaries,  as  Blackstone  says.  That  tradi- 
tion, under  such  circumstances,  and  in  reference  to  such  im- 
portant matters,  is  a  safe,  certain,  and  efficient  means  of  trans- 
mission, is  demonstrated  in  the  case  of  the  common  law  of  Eng 
land ;  for  after  all  the  changes  that  have  been  made  in  that  sys- 
tem, and  all  that  may  hereafter  be  needed,  the  great  mass  of  its 
provisions  will  most  likely  remain.  And  if  we  make  a  judicious 
deduction  for  unadvised  changes,  which  rashness  and  ignorance 
have  made,  in  the  name  of  reform,  we  shall  then  be  able  to  see 
how  little  has  been  accomplished  in  the  way  of  genuine  improve- 
ment upon  that  great  traditional  system  of  law. 

The  true  character  of  laws  is  best  seen  and  understood  when 
they  are  practically  administered.  As  that  military  commander 
is  the  most  consummate  chieftain  whose  plans  work  out  most 
beautifully  upon  the  field  of  battle,  so  that  system  of  law  is  the 
best  which  produces  the  most  practical  good.  And  our  great 
iudges,  our  best  law  writers,  from  Lord  Hale  to  Chief  Justice 
Marshall,  and  from  Blackstone  to  Kent,  are  almost,  if  not  quite, 
unanimous  in  their  admiration  of  the  common  law,  and  in  thei:» 
condemnation  of  all  hasty  and  crude  changes  in  the  system.  If 
we  look  into  the  numerous  perplexing  cases  that  have  arisen  in 
courts  of  justice  in  modern  times,  we  shall  find  that  the  most 
difficult  questions  have  been  in  reference  to  the  construction  of 
statutes — that  the  most  uncertainty  and  confusion  have  been 
produced  by  these  frequent  changes — and  that  of  the  two,  the 
common  law  is  the  more  uniform,  consistent,  and  certain. 
"  And,"  says  Blackstone,  "  it  hath  been_  an  antient  observation 


16  THE   LAW   OF   CHRIST. 

in  the  laws  of  England,  that  whenever  a  standing  rule  of  law, 
of  which  the  reason,  perhaps,  could  not  be  remembered  or  dis- 
cerned, hath  been  wantonly  broken  in  upon  by  statutes  or  new 
resolutions,  the  wisdom  of  the  rule  hath  in  the  end  appeared, 
from  the  inconveniences  that  have  followed  the  innovation."  (1 
Com.,  70.) 

And  Mr.  Justice  Cowen,  in  the  case  of  Douglass  v.  Howard, 
(24  Wendell's  Rep.,  45-47,)  among  other  things,  says : 

"  There  is  scarcely  any  branch  of  legal  policy  more  worthy 
of  being  enforced  than  that  which  aims  to  keep  the  laws  of  a 
nation  the  same  in  all  respects  from  one  age  to  another,  except 
in  points  where  change  becomes  absolutely  necessary.  Time, 
says  Lord  Hale,  is  wiser  than  all  the  wits  in  the  world,  and  the 
law  which  has  been  tried  by  it  has  the  highest  possible  evidence 
in  its  favor.  Time  is  the  schoolmaster  which  teaches  law  most 
effectually,  and  without  which  it  cannot  be  generally  known." 

The  same  great  judge  calls  this  an  "age  when  there  is  liter- 
ally a  mania  for  changing  every  law  in  some  way."  In  this  sen- 
timent Chancellor  Kent  agrees  when  he  speaks  of  "  the  rage  for 
bold,  reckless,  and  presumptuous  innovation,  so  prevalent  at 
this  day,  acting  in  contempt  of  the  usages  and  wisdom  of  the. 
common  law."  (l  Com.,  473,  note.)  And  Lord  Hale  says, 
"  Such  are  the  common  laws  of  England ;  namely,  the  pro- 
duction of  much  wisdom,  time,  and  experience."  (Cited  1 
Kent,  472.) 

If,  then,  a  great  system  of  law,  so  nearly  approaching  per- 
fection, and,  as  Sir  Matthew  Hale  says,  "  is  vast  and  compre- 
hensive," and  "  consists  of  infinite  particulars,"  has  been  trans- 
mitted by  tradition  from  age  to  age,  in  a  form  so  fixed,  certain, 
and  uniform,  upon  what  ground  can  we  say  that  such  a  medium 
is  unsafe  in  the  transmission  of  laws,  in  the  preservation  of  which 
every  member  of  the  association  is  so  deeply  interested  ? 

The  abstract  objection  against  tradition  as  a  medium  of 
transmission  is  not  only  shown  to  be  unfounded  by  the  historical 
test  in  the  case  of  the  common  law  of  England  and  other  coun- 
tries, but  also  by  the  history  of  the  creation,  and  of  God's  early 
dealings  with  mankind,  which  was  transmitted  by  tradition  from 
age  to  age,  for  the  space  of  two  thousand  years,  until  written 
out  by  Moses ;  speaking  of  which,  Dr.  Spring  says :  "  Before  hia 


THE    LAW   OF   CHRIST.  17 

word  was  reduced  to  writing,  these  various  communications 
were  narrated,  treasured  up  in  the  memory,  and  became  a  tra- 
ditionary revelation."  (Dissertation  13.) 

So  far  as  abstract  considerations  go,  they  are  not  against  the 
position  that  the  law  of  Christ  is  partly  written  and  partly  oral ; 
but  for  the  reasons  already  given,  and  others  that  will  be  here- 
after stated,  they  would  seem  strongly  to  support  it.  And  it 
was  well  admitted  by  Dr.  Spring,  in  reference  to  this  law  of 
Christ,  that  "  there  is  no  absurdity  in  supposing  it  to  be  partly 
oral  and  partly  written,  while  both  might  be  amplified  and  in- 
terpreted by  one  another."  (Dis.  12.) 

§  5.   Of  the  inspiration  and  authenticity  of  the  written  law  of 

Christ. 

In  the  nature  of  things,  before  the  mind  can  arrive  at  the 
conclusion  that  the  Bible  is  inspired,  there  must  be  sufficient 
proof  of  this  fact.  This  evidence  must  either  be  found  in  tradi- 
tion, or  in  the  book  itself,  or  in  both  combined.  If  the  point 
to  be  proved  is  simply  the  historical  existence  of  the  Scriptures, 
then  the  testimony  of  ordinary  history  will  suffice.  In  other 
words,  it  will  be  competent  to  prove  that  the  separate  books, 
bearing  the  names  of  the  writers,  were  in  fact  written  by  them ; 
for  ordinary  history  can  show  us  that  those  books  were  in  exist- 
ence at  a  certain  period,  purporting  to  have  been  written  by  the 
authors  whose  names  they  bear ;  and  this  will,  prima  facie, 
prove  their  authenticity  and  genuineness,  as  the  same  kind  of 
testimony  would  show  the  authenticity  of  the  works  of  any  other 
writer.  It  will  also  prove,  prima  facie,  the  integrity  of  the 
writers,  for  this  must  be  presumed  until  the  contrary  is  shown. 
But  when  we  prove  the  authenticity  of  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament — that  they  were  in  fact  written  by  the  persons  whose 
names  they  bear,  and  at  the  periods  mentioned,  we  have  not 
established  any  thing  more  than  the  facts  stated  in  each  of  the 
books  themselves.  And  if  the  fact  of  inspiration  be  not  stated 
in  the  books,  we  must,  of  necessity,  resort  to  other  testimony, 
or  admit  the  assumed  fact  without  proof.  In  short,  we  must 
look  to  proof  outside  the  record. 

It  is,  indeed,  insisted  that  the  inspiration  of  Scripture  is,  in 
part,  proven  by  evidence  seen  upon  the  face  thereof,  although 


18  THE   LAW    OP   CHRIST. 

not  expressly  stated  in  words.  Thus  the  Rev.  Hartwell  Home 
says :  "  The  miracles  related  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments 
are  proofs  that  the  Scriptures  were  given  by  inspiration  of  God." 
(Introduction,  vol.  i.,  p.  204,  7th  ed.)  And  Dr.  Spring  says : 
"  These  books  speak  for  themselves  that  they  are  not  the  work 
of  men."  (Dis.  28.) 

It  would  seem  somewhat  difficult  to  understand  how  the  mir- 
acles related  in  the  Bible  can  be  a  proof  of  the  inspiration  of 
the  books  in  which  they  are  simply  recorded.  We  can  well 
understand  how  these  miracles  were  proofs  of  the  character  and 
capacity  of  the  persons  by  whom  they  were  performed,  but  it  is 
not  so  easy  to  see  how  they  can  constitute  proofs  of  the  inspira- 
tion of  books  written  long  after  they  occurred.  The  facts  re- 
lated may  constitute  proofs.  This  inherent  capacity,  as  proofs, 
exists  in  the  facts  themselves,  no  matter  when  or  by  whom  re- 
lated, so  they  are  duly  authenticated.  If,  therefore,  the  same 
facts  are  related  in  any  other  book,  and  their  simple  relation 
proves  the  book  inspired,  then  the  history  of  Josephus  is  in- 
spired, because  true  miracles  are  related  therein. 

It  is  not,  then,  the  character  or  quality  of  the  facts  related 
that  proves  the  inspiration  of  the  historian.  These  facts  may 
be  related  by  an  uninspired  historian  as  well  as  any  other  class 
of  visible  facts.  And  when  Dr.  Spring  says  the  Scriptures  "  speak 
for  themselves  that  they  are  not  the  work  of  men,"  he  does  not 
mean  to  say  that  they  state  so  in  express  words ;  but  that  the  ex- 
traordinary character  of  the  facts  and  doctrines  stated  is  proof 
that  the  mind  of  man  could  not  have  originated  the  system  there- 
in recorded.  But  this  relates  only  to  the  nature  of  the  matter 
recorded;  and  not  to  the  inspired  character  of  the  record  itself. 
That  which  assumes  to  be  a  deposition  may  contain  important 
and  true  evidence,  and  yet  this  will  not  entitle  it  to  be  read.  It 
must  have  been  properly  taken.  And  I  apprehend  that  if  an 
honest,  yet  uninspired  historian,  had  been  with  Christ,  and  wit 
nessed  his  miracles,  and  had,  to  the  best  of  his  ability,  faithfully 
recorded  what  he  saw,  and  that  this  record  had  come  down  to 
us,  neither  Dr.  Spring  nor  Mr.  Home  could  have  pronounced  as 
to  its  inspiration,  simply  because  of  the  character  of  the  matte* 
related. 

It  may  well  be  conceded  that  the  human  mind  is  competent 


THE   LAW    OF   CHRIST.  19 

to  determine  the  extent  of  its  own  powers,  and  that,  conse- 
quently, the  system  recorded  in  the  Scriptures  could  not  have 
originated  with  man.  But  this  is  not  the  only  fact  to  be  proven. 
We  wish  also  to  know  whether  the  Scriptures  contain  nothing 
but  the  truth ;  and  when  we  reach  the  conclusion  that  the  re- 
cord is  inspired,  we  are  satisfied  that  it  contains  no  falsehood. 
The  inspiration,  when  once  established,  is  a  conclusive  guaranty 
that  the  record  is  true. 

But  how  can  the  human  mind  assume  the  capacity  to  deter- 
mine, from  the  face  of  the  record  itself,  that  there  have  been  no 
additions  or  omissions  f  The  capacity  to  decide  upon  the  face 
of  the  record,  that  no  changes  have  been  made,  must  be  equal 
to  the  capacity  to  originate.  Suppose  some  texts  omitted,  and 
some  interpolated,  would  the  human  mind  be  able  to  restore  the 
mutilated  text  to  its  original  form,  f  And  with  a  copy  of  the 
original  Scriptures  before  him,  would  not  the  forger  be  able  to 
make  so  good  an  imitation  as  to  defy  detection  by  a  simple  com- 
parison of  the  two,  when  it  was  unknown  which  was  the  genu- 
ine record  ? 

§  6.   Of  the  logical  course  of  examination  to  ascertain  the  in* 
spiration  of  the  authors  of  the  New  Testament. 

What,  then,  is  the  logical  course  of  examination  which  will 
lead  an  original  inquirer  to  the  conclusion  that  the  New  Testa- 
ment Scriptures  are  inspired  ?  The  point  to  be  proven  is  that 
these  books  are  all,  and  each,  of  them  inspired  records,  con- 
taining only  the  truth,  and  written  by  the  authorized  agents 
of  God. 

It  is  obvious  that  any  being  inspired  by  God  for  a  given 
purpose,  must  be  His  agent  for  the  end  intended.  The  prin- 
cipal who,  in  virtue  of  his  own  nature,  possesses  a  mass  of 
powers,  may  delegate  them  in  smaller  or  larger  portions,  at  his 
pleasure.  So,  God  can  delegate  inspiration  and  authority  to 
one  or  more  individuals  for  one  specific  purpose  only,  or  for  sev- 
eral specific  purposes.  In  such  cases,  the  inspiration  and  au- 
thority will  be  confined  to  the  specific  purposes  mentioned  in 
the  commission.  It  is  also  obvious  to  common  sense  that  when 
power  is  delegated  from  a  principal  to  his  agent,  that  the  prin- 
cipal must  himself  give  the  evidence  of  that  fact.  It  is  true 


20  THE    LAW    OF   CHRIST. 

that  the  principal  may  appoint  an  agent,  with  power  to  appoint 
sub-agents,  but  in  that  case  the  evidence  of  the  original  grant 
of  power  must  flow  from  the  principal,  and  is  shown  by  his  act. 
Power  and  inspiration  could  not  flow  from  God  without  His 
consent,  and  the  evidence  of  such  a  delegation  to  another  must 
necessarily  come  from  Him.  His  act  alone  can  constitute  such 
evidence.  And  this  evidence  must  be  of  such  a  character  as  to  be 
apprehended  by  the  persons  to  be  affected  by  the  acts  of  the 
agent ;  otherwise,  the  fact  of  agency  could  not  be  known  to  them. 

With  these  principles  in  his  mind  the  inquirer  takes  up  the 
New  Testament  and  any  other  history  relating  facts  bearing 
upon  the  question.  He  regards  them  all  as  placed  upon  the 
same  ground — as  simple,  uninspired  history.  He  considers  the 
New  Testament  writers  as  men,  competent,  without  inspiration, 
to  state  facts  they  witnessed,  and  relate  discourses  they  heard. 
The  genuineness  of  their  works,  and  the  integrity  of  the 
writers,  are  proved  to  him  in  the  same  way,  and  by  the  same 
evidence,  as  the  works  and  integrity  of  the  other  historians  he 
may  consult. 

The  miracles  of  Christ  were  visible  acts.  So,  His  discourses 
were  delivered  in  human  language,  and  could  be  recorded,  as 
any  other  discourses.  The  inquirer  becomes  satisfied,  from  the 
testimony,  that  the  miracles  related  were  in  fact  performed  by 
Christ.  From  his  knowledge  of  the  more  obvious  and  familiar 
laws  of  nature,  he  knows  they  could  not  have  been  the  acts  of 
men,  and  he  draws  at  once  the  conclusion  of  Nicodemus,  that 
no  man  could  do  those  things,  except  God  be  with  him.  The 
performance  of  the  miracles  is  established  by  the  historical  tes- 
timony, and  the  miracles,  when  proven,  establish  the  character 
and  capacity  of  Christ. 

The  inquirer  is  then  prepared  to  believe  Christ  upon  Hia 
word  :  for  if  He  be  God,  He  cannot  lie ;  and  if  He  be  not  God, 
but  only  an  inspired  agent,  still  he  cannot  lie  as  to  the  facts  of 
his  agency  and  inspiration.  Whatever  account,  therefore,  the  di 
vine  or  inspired  person  gives  of  his  character  and  of  his  mission, 
must  be  believed,  because  God,  by  His  own  act,  has  conclusively 
established  the  veracity  of  the  person,  in  reference  to  those 
matters.  Whenever  such  person  assumes  to  act  in  his  capacity 
as  such  agent,  he  must  be  believed.  Then  as  to  what  Christ 


THE   LAW    OF   CHRIST.  21 

said,  the  same  simple  historical  testimony  relates  it.  Matthew 
and  John  heard  it,  and  have  left  their  record.  So,  the  historical 
testimony  equally  proves  the  miracles,  and  discourses,  and  acts 
of  the  apostles.  The  miracles  performed  by  the  apostles  prove 
them  to  have  been  veracious  and  competent  witnesses,  and  their 
testimony,  as  to  facts,  must  be  true. 

From  the  testimony  of  the  New  Testament,  he  learns  that 
Christ  said  He  would  build  His  church,  against  which  the  gates 
of  hell  should  never  prevail — that  He  commanded  His  followers 
to  hear  this  church — that  He  commissioned  the  eleven  to  teach 
all  nations — that  they  did  set  up  the  kingdom,  the  church,  and 
put  the  law  of  Christ  into  practical  operation.  By  the  record 
he  is  informed  how  the  church  was  practically  governed — what 
was  its  character,  what  were  its  powers  as  then  exercised,  and 
that  the  whole  deposit  of  faith  was  left  by  Christ  with  the  church. 
And  his  reason  and  common  sense  assure  him  that  Christ,  like 
any  other  founder  of  a  government,  would  necessarily  make  the 
institution  created  by  Himself,  the  depositary  of  the  laws  in- 
tended for  its  own  direction.  He  finds  it  historically  related,  as 
a  matter  of  fact,  that  long  after  the  organization  of  the  Church, 
a  difficult  question  arose  among  its  rulers ;  that  to  settle  this 
question  the  Council  of  Jerusalem  was  called ;  that  some  of  the 
apostles,  as  well  as  other  governors  of  the  Church,  participated ; 
that  this  body  rendered  a  final  and  conclusive  decree,  declaring 
the  law  applicable  to  a  particular  case  ;  that  this  decree  was  the 
act  of  the  Church ;  and  that,  upon  its  face,  it  assumed  to  be  the 
result  of  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  He  finds,  upon  the 
face  of  the  historical  record  of  this  decree,  the  evidence  of  Pe- 
ter, Paul,  and  James,  to  the  inspiration  of  the  Church.  He  also 
finds  Paul  stating  that  this  Church  was  the  pillar  and  ground  of 
the  truth. 

Having  thus  arrived  at  the  knowledge  of  the  fact  that  the 
Church  is  an  inspired  witness,  he  finds,  by  examining  her  his- 
tory, that  she  has  attested  the  fact  that  the  works  of  the  New 
Testament  authors,  including  those  of  Mark  and  Luke,  (who 
were  not  apostles,)  were  the  inspired  Word  of  God,  originally 
deposited  with  the  Church.  In  this  way  the  inquirer  arrives  at 
the  conviction  that  the  canon  of  Scripture  is  complete,  contain- 
im?  *11  the  inspired  books,  and  only  such.  With  him  ordinary 


ZZ  THE    LAW    OF   CHRIST. 

history  proved  the  miracles  and  discourses  of  Christ  and  His 
apostles ;  they  proved  the  institution  and  character  of  the 
Church ;  and  the  Church  proved  the  inspiration  of  the  New 
Testament  writers  :  the  chain  of  testimony  is  complete,  and  he 
has  supernatural  or  inspired  testimony  to  the  fact  of  the  inspira- 
tion of  each  writer,  of  each  book,  of  the  New  Testament. 

It  would  seem  exceedingly  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  upon  any 
other  authority,  to  establish  the  inspiration  of  all  the  books  com- 
posing the  New  Testament,  especially  those  of  Mark  and  Luke. 
These  writers  performed  no  miracles,  so  far  as  we  are  informed ; 
and  we  have  no  testimony  of  Christ  as  to  their  inspiration,  nor 
do  any  of  the  apostles  tell  us  they  were  inspired,  nor  do  the 
writers  tKemselves  claim  any  inspiration.  So  far  from  Mark  or 
Luke  saying  they  were  inspired  historians,  the  latter,  in  his  pre- 
face, seems  to  write  as  an  ordinary  historian,  as  he  states  he  re- 
ceived the  facts  recorded  from  the  witnesses  who  had  delivered 
them  to  him.  And  if  they  had  stated  they  were  inspired,  such 
a  statement  alone,  made  by  persons  whose  veracity  was  not  first 
divinely  attested,  could  not  have  proven  it  to  be  true,  as  it 
would  have  been  only  that  human  testimony  which  any  impos- 
tor could  have  given,  without  the  fear  of  direct  contradiction. 
To  prove  the  performance  of  miracles,  or  the  delivery  of  dis- 
courses, which  are  external  matters,  cognizant  by  the  senses, 
and  seen  and  heard  by  a  number  of  witnesses,  who  are  mutual 
checks  upon  each  other,  the  testimony  of  ordinary  history  is 
amply  sufficient.  But  when  we  come  to  prove  the  higher  fact 
of  the  secret  and  invisible  communication  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to 
the  minds  of  Mark  and  Luke,  we  must  have  testimony  as  high 
as  the  fact  to  be  proved — that  of  miracles,  or  of  persons  whose 
veracity  has  already  been  divinely  attested.  A  man  cannot 
prove  his  own  inspiration  by  his  own  testimony,  independent  oi 
that  of  God.  This  secret  inspiration  could  not  be  known  to 
others  not  inspired,  and  the  ordinary  historian  could  not  give 
evidence  of  that  which,  from  its  nature,  could  not  be  known  to 
him  without  the  visible  attestation  of  God. 

§  7.   Of  the  unwritten  law  of  Christ. 

From  the  simple  history  of  the  New  Testament  it  is  shown 
that  Christ  appeared  among  men  as  a  lawgiver — that  He  pro- 


THE    LAW    OF    CHRIST.  23 

mulgated  His  law  orally,  (for  there  is  no  evidence  in  the  record 
that  He  ever  wrote  any  thing,  except  what  he  wrote  with  his 
finger  upon  the  ground ;)  that  He  gave  no  command  that  His 
laws  should  be  reduced  to  writing,  but  having  verbally  instruct- 
ed His  apostles,  He  commissioned  them,  to  act  as  His  agents. 
These  inspired  agents  carried  out  the  commission,  and  the  king- 
dom was  governed  for  many  years  before  any  part  of  the  law 
was  written.  This  unwritten  law  was  the  original  law  of  the 
Church.  It  was  given  and  practically  administered  in  that 
form,  and  in  that  form  was  obligatory  upon  every  member  of 
the  association. 

This  being  the  original  and  established  form  of  the  code,  to 
substitute  the  written  law  for  the  unwritten,  either  in  whole  or 
in  part,  would  require  the  affirmative  act,  either  of  the  law- 
maker Himself  or  of  His  lawful  agents.  And  only  in  so  far  as 
the  written  law  included  the  unwritten,  can  the  former  become 
a  substitute  for  the  latter,  except  it  be  expressly  so  declared. 
If,  then,  it  be  true  that  only  a  part  of  the  original  law  of  Chris- 
tianity has  been  written,  the  entire  code  must  consist  of  both 
these  parts,  unless  the  unwritten  portion  has  been  expressly 
repealed. 

When  God  gave  a  law  to  the  Jews,  He  expressly  command- 
ed it  to  be  written,  "  And  Moses  wrote  all  the  words  of  the 
Lord."  (Exodus  xxiv.  4.)  The  tables  upon  which  the  law  was 
engraved,  having  been  broken  by  Moses,  they  were  renewed. 
(Ex.  xxxiv.  1-28.)  The  law  was  required  to  be  read  to  all  the 
people  at  the  end  of  every  seventh  year,  at  the  Feast  of  Taber- 
nacles. (Deut.  xxxi.  10,  11.) 

If  our  Lord  intended  that  the  law  governing  the  Church  or- 
ganized by  Him  should  become  a  written  code,  it  would  seem 
very  natural  and  reasonable  that  He  should  have  made  provision* 
for  that  end,  as  was  done  in  the  case  of  the  Old  Law.  It  would 
seem  difficult  to  understand  why  God,  intending  to  accomplish 
the  same  end  in  both  cases,  should  make  express  provision  to 
secure  the  end  in  one,  and  not  in  the  other.  But  upon  the 
theory  that  He  intended  the  code  to  be  written  in  the  one,  and 
not  in  the  other,  we  can  well  understand  why  God  acted  differ- 
ently in  the  two  cases. 

But  we  meet  with  no  intimation,  either  in  the  words  of 


24:  THE    LAW    OF    CHRIST. 

Christ  or  in  those  of  His  apostles,  that  any  such  intention  ever 
existed.  And  when  we  come  to  look  into  the  books  them- 
selves, and  consider  their  history,  we  shall  see  abundant  reason 
to  negative  any  such  idea.  We  find  that  these  books  were  the 
result,  not  of  any  direction  by  Christ,  that  they  should  be  writ- 
ten, but  of  casual  circumstances.  Matthew  wrote  for  a  specific 
class  of  readers,  and  Luke  wrote  for  a  single  individual.  The 
Epistles  of  Paul  were  evidently  written  to  different  churches 
and  individuals,  whom  he  could  not  visit  at  the  time,  and  for 
the  purpose  of  correcting  some  local  corruptions  or  heresies. 
The  very  form  in  which  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  are 
written,  not  being  regular  and  methodical,  shows  they  were  not 
intended  by  their  authors  to  form  a  complete  code  of  law. 
Many  of  the  most  important  doctrines  mentioned  by  St.  Paul 
are  very  concisely  stated,  and  introduced  parenthetically,  and 
as  illustrations.  The  apostles  were  expressly  commanded  to 
preach,  and  that  mode  of  teaching  became  obligatory.  But  as 
to  teaching  by  written  instructions,  there  seems  to  have  been 
nothing  determined  by  Christ ;  but  the  adoption  of  that  mode 
was  left  discretionary,  to  be  governed  by  circumstances.  Hence 
we  find  them  resorting  to  that  mode  of  communicating  with 
particular  individuals  or  churches  as  often  as  convenience  or 
other  circumstances  rendered  it  advisable.  While  absent,  or 
in  prison,  this  was  the  only  available  means  they  could  use. 

As  the  unwritten  law  was  the  first  law  of  Christianity,  and 
the  only  law  for  many  years ;  before  the  written  law  could  be- 
come a  part  of  the  code,  it  would  be  requisite  to  establish  its 
validity  by  some  affirmative  act.  And  the  mere  fact  that  por- 
tions of  the  law  were  subsequently  written,  would  not,  of  itself, 
show  any  intention  to  substitute  those  portions  for  the  entire 
code.  If  we  go  back  to  the  earliest  British  statutes  now  extant, 
the  fact  of  their  existence  as  written  law,  and  the  passage  of  nu- 
merous statutes  since,  by  parliament,  will  not  afford  the  slight- 
est evidence  of  any  intention  to  abolish  the  common  law,  except 
where  it  has  been  expressly  superseded,  or  the  statute  is  mani- 
festly incompatible  with  it.  But  it  may  be  justly  said,  that  the 
statutes  themselves  recognize  the  common  law  as  a  part  of  the 
law  of  the  realm.  This  is  true ;  but  it  would  seem  to  be  equally 
true  that  the  written  expressly  admits  the  existence  of  the  un- 


THE   LAW   OF   CHRIST.  25 

written  law  as  part  of  the  Christian  code.     Of  this  in  another 
place. 

Those  who  insist  that  the  written  Word  contains  the  entire 
law  of  Christ,  are  bound,  it  would  seem,  by  every  rule  of  sound 
interpretation,  to  show  at  least  one  of  two  things:  1.  That  the 
written  law  contains  all  of  the  original  unwritten  law;  or  2. 
That  admitting  it  not  to  contain  all  the  original  law  of  the  king- 
dom, it  has  been,  by  competent  authority,  expressly  adopted  as 
an  entire  substitute  for  it.  For  unless  one  or  the  other  of  these 
positions  can  be  satisfactorily  proven,  the  presumption  of  law 
and  right  reason  would  always  be,  that  the  code  consists  of  two 
parts,  the  written  and  the  unwritten. 

V' 

§  8.   The  same  matter  further  considered. 

As  to  the  first  position,  that  the  written,  includes  all  of  the 
unwritten  law,  there  is  no  satisfactory  proof;  but  the  evidence 
seems  clearly  to  establish  the  contrary  fact.  It  is  true  that  St . 
Luke  says,  in  the  preface  to  his  Gospel,  that  he  had  "  perfect 
understanding  of  all  things  from  the  very  first;"  and  in  his 
Acts  of  the  Apostles  he  says,  "  the  former  treatise  have  I  writ- 
ten of  all  that  Jesus  began  both  to  do  and  teach ; "  yet  these 
general  expressions  are  not  only  limited  by  his  own  statements 
in  other  places,  but  by  the  statements  of  other  New  Testament 
writers  and  by  the  facts  recorded  by  them.  For  Luke  himself 
informs  us  that  Christ  was  seen  of  the  apostles  forty  days  after 
His  passion,  and  speaking  of  the  things  pertaining  to  the  king- 
dom of  God ;  and  this  writer  nowhere  assumes  to  give  these  in- 
structions of  our  Lord  in  full.  Besides,  Matthew,  John,  and 
Mark  record  numerous  facts  and  instructions  of  our  Lord  not 
mentioned  by  Luke ;  and  St.  John  tells  us  that  many  other 
things  Jesus  did,  which  he  does  not  himself  record,  and  says,  in 
strong  hyperbolical  language,  that  if  they  all  should  be  written, 
every  one,  the  world  itself,  he  supposes,  could  not  contain  the 
books.  And  none  of  the  subsequent  books  assume  to  contain 
all  the  instructions  of  Christ  or  of  His  apostles.  Indeed,  this 
position  is  so  clear,  that  I  am  not  aware  of  any  writer  who  main- 
tains the  contrary. 

In  reference  to  this  matter,  Dr.  Spring  says :  "  The  Saviour 
appeared  among  men  as  a  living  teacher.  We  have  no  evidence 
4 


26  THE   LAW   OF   CHKIST. 

that  his  personal  instructions  were  delivered  to  the  apostles  re- 
writing, or  that  the  preaching  of  the  apostles  was  in  any  other 
way  than  orally.  On  the  other  hand,  we  do  not  deny  that  both 
Christ  himself,  and  his  apostles,  uttered  many  and  important 
truths  that  were  never  committed  to  writing."  Again :  "  But 
there  is  no  evidence  that  any  of  them,  (the  instructions  of  Christ 
and  his  apostles,)  or  even  any  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, were  written  until  years  after  his  ascension  into  heaven." 
(Dissertation  17.) 

These  are  very  important  admissions,  and  while  they  concede 
no  more  than  the  simple  truth,  they  give  rise  to  very  serious 
and  interesting  inquiries. 

Was  Christ  a  lawgiver  ?  As  such,  was  He  powerless,  in- 
competent, or  frivolous  ?  In  giving  His  law,  did  He  so  exhaust 
His  powers  that  He  made  no  provision  for  the  preservation  and 
perpetuation  of  His  entire  code  f  Or  did  He  intend  that  the 
Christians  of  the  first  age  should  be  governed  by  a  full  and  com- 
plete code  of  law,  while  the  Christians  of  all  succeeding  ages 
should  be  governed  by  a  mutilated  code,  robbed  of  "  many  and 
important  truths  "  ?  Did  he  intend  that  the  Church,  in  the 
days  of  the  apostles,  should  believe  one  system  of  faith,  and  his 
followers,  in  after  ages,  should  believe  another  ?  Is  not  this 
theory  too  humiliating  to  be  true  ?  On  the  contrary,  did  not 
Christ  build  but  one  Church,  for  the  government  of  which  He 
gave  but  one  law?  And  did  He  not  intend  that  this  entire 
code,  as  He  delivered  it,  should  govern  this  one  Church,  from 
the  first  even  to  the  last  period  of  her  existence  upon  earth  ? 
Did  not  the  Christians  of  the  apostolic  day  live  under  the  same 
dispensation  and  under  the  same  code  of  law  as  we  of  the  pres- 
ent ?  Were  they  not  required  to  believe  the  same  things  ? 

Our  Lord  promised  His  apostles  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  should 
"  teach  them  all  things,  and  bring  all  things  to  their  remem- 
brance whatsoever  He  had  said  unto  them."  (John  xiv.  26.)  And 
after  making  this  inviolable  promise,  He  gave  them  that  impera- 
tive command  to  "teach  all  nations  to  observe  all  things  whatso- 
ever I  have  commanded  you."  This  command  was  the  last  one 
given — -was  to  take  effect  and  be  put  in  force  on  and  after  the 
day  of  Pentecost,  and,  therefore,  included  all  things  Christ  had 
"before  that  day  commanded  the  apostles  to  observe,  except  the 


THE    LAW    OF   CHRIST.  27 

few  commands  specially  limited  to  them,  such  as  the  command 
to  tarry  in  Jerusalem.  The  command  in  the  commission  is  gen- 
eral, and  for  a  general  purpose,  and  not  limited  by  any  other 
text ;  and,  according  to  rule  the  fourth,  must  be  taken  in  its 
widest  sense  compatible  with  the  general  scope  of  the  whole 
system.  The  apostles  executed  this  commission,  for  St.  Paul 
tells  the  elders  of  Ephesus :  "  I  have  not  shunned  to  declare 
unto  you  all  the  counsel  of  God."  (Acts  xx.  27.)  And  the  same 
apostle  says  to  the  Galatians :  "  But  though  we,  or  an  angel 
from  heaven,  preach  any  other  gospel  unto  you,  than  that  which 
we  have  preached  unto  you,  let  him  be  accursed."  And  so  im- 
portant did  St.  Paul  esteem  this  doctrine  that  he  repeats  it  in 
the  next  verse,  almost  in  the  same  words.  (Gal.  i.  8.)  Then 
whatever  requisites  did  compose  the  Gospel,  as  received  by  the 
Apostles,  they  did  teach. 

If,  therefore,  the  Gospel  received  and  taught  by  the  apos- 
tles, was  made  up  of  certain  requisites,  no  man  is  authorized  to 
preach  any  other  Gospel  made  up  of  any  other  requisites,  either 
more  or  less ;  for  if  such  Gospel  contain  more  or  less  constitu- 
ents than  the  original,  it  is  adulterated  in  the  first,  and  mutilated 
in  the  second  case,  and  it  cannot  be  the  same,  but  must  be 
different.  The  identity  in  such  case  is  destroyed.  How,  then, 
can  the  Gospel  which  does  not  contain  "  many  and  important 
truths  uttered  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles,"  as  Dr.  Spring  ad- 
mits, be  the  same  gospel  preached  by  the  Apostles  ?  If  we  can 
omit  "  many  and  important  truths,"  and  the  identity  of  the 
gospel  be  not  destroyed,  what  limit  can  there  be  to  such  omis- 
sions ?  Would  a  mutilated  statute,  deprived  of  "  many  and  im- 
portant "  sections,  be  the  same  as  the  original  ?  Suppose  we 
strike  from  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  "  many  and 
important "  provisions,  would  it  still  be  the  same  constitution  ? 

As  the  law  of  Christ  was  originally  promulgated  orally,  and 
reduced  to  practice  in  that  form,  and  for  many  years  the  entire 
church  was  so  governed — and  as  the  written  law  is  conceded 
not  to  contain  "  many  and  important  truths  " — before  we  can 
assume  that  the  entire  unwritten  code  has  been  repealed,  the 
proofs  should  be  of  the  highest  and  most  conclusive  character. 
The  intention  thus  to  mutilate  a  great  system  of  law,  given  for 
the  government  of  the  same  perpetual  institution,  and  given  by 


28  THE   LAW    OF   CimiST. 

a  Divine  legislator,  who  could  make  His  law  perfect  at  the  be- 
ginning without  the  necessity  of  subsequent  change,  ought  to 
be  shown  by  proofs  remarkably  clear  and  full ;  for  it  would 
seem  a  strange  anomaly,  that  a  lawgiver  of  such  a  character, 
should  so  defectively  arrange  His  government,  that  His  code 
should  become  incomplete  in  a  very  few  years  after  its  promul- 
gation ;  thus  leaving  the  subsequent  subjects  of  His  kingdom 
not  so  well  governed  as  those  at  the  beginning.  Such^a  result 
might  well  happen  from  the  imperfect  system  of  a  human  legis- 
lator, and  contrary  to  his  intention.  But  how  the  law  of  Christ 
could  be  thus  crippled,  contrary  to  His  intention,  is  most  diffi- 
cult to  imagine.  For  we  cannot  conceive  why  the  "  many  and 
important  truths  "  should  have  been  uttered  by  Christ  and  His 
apostles,  unless  it  was  intended  they  should  be  preserved  ;  nor 
can  we  think  that  Christ  and  His  apostles  were  idle  or  power- 
less— that  they  uttered  truths  to  be  forgotten — enacted  laws 
not  to  be  obeyed — and  that  they  promulgated  important  prin- 
ciples, forming  a  part  of  one  entire  system  of  law,  that  they, 
nevertheless,  intended  should  be  lost. 

It  is  true  that  St.  John  says :  "  But  these  are  written,  that 
ye  might  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God ;  and 
that  believing  ye  might  have  life  through  his  name."  But  this 
he  spoke  of  his  own  gospel  only,  as  can  be  seen  in  the  pre- 
ceding verse.  If  the  apostle  intended  any  thing  exclusive  in 
this  statement,  so  as  to  show  that  his  gospel  was  alone  necessary 
and  sufficient,  independent  of  any  other  part  of  the  law,  then  he 
intended  to  exclude,  as  well  the  other  Scriptures,  even  his  own 
Epistles  and  his  Revelations,  as  the  unwritten  law  itself.  He 
does  not  seem  to  have  had  that  consequence  in  view ;  and  as 
the  text  is  general  and  not  specific,  we  must  also  look  to  other 
portions  of  the  Scripture,  which  refer  to  this  question,  and  con- 
strue and  apply  all  together,  and  give  force  and  effect  to  all. 

§  9.  Of  the  Scriptural  view  of  the  written  and  the  unwritten 

Law. 

St.  Paul,  in  his  Second  Epistle  to  Timothy,  seems  to  place 
this  subject  in  a  clear  light.  He  says : 

"  But  continue  thou  in  the  things  which  thou  hast  learned. 


THE    LAW   OF   CHEI8T.  29 

and  hast  been  assured  of,  knowing  of  whom  thou  hast  learned 
them." 

This  passage,  taken  in  connection  with  preceding  passages 
found  in  the  First  and  Second  Epistles  to  Timothy,  especially 
with  those  wherein  St.  Paul  tells  him  to  "  hold  fast  the  form 
of  sound  words, 'Which  thou  hast  heard  of  me,"  and  "the 
things  that  thou  hast  heard  of  me  among  many  witnesses,  the 
same  commit  thou  to  faithful  men  able  to  teach  others  also,"  as 
well  as  those  regarding  the  manner  of  St.  Paul's  teaching,  incul- 
cates upon  Timothy  the  duty  of  continuing  in  the  things  which 
he  had  learned  of  the  apostle  verbally,  and  to  commit  the  same 
to  others  in  the  same  way.  In  other  words,  it  is  a  commenda- 
tion of  tradition  ;  showing  that  the  law  thus  conveyed  to  Timo- 
thy was  obligatory  upon  him  and  others  in  that  form. 

The  apostle  goes  on  to  say,  in  close  connection  with  this 
passage : 

"  And  that  from  a  child  thou  hast  known  the  holy  Scriptures, 
which  are  able  to  make  thee  wise  unto  salvation,  through  faith 
which  is  in  Jesus  Christ." 

Now  the  Scriptures  here  spoken  of  were  undoubtedly  those 
of  the  Old  Testament,  for  Timothy  had  known  them  from  a 
child.  These  Scriptures  are  said  to  be  able  to  make  Timothy 
wise  unto  salvation;  but  the  apostle  expressly  qualifies  this 
language  by  adding,  "  through  faith  which  is  in  Jesus  Christ." 
The  substance  of  this  passage,  as  I  understand  it,  is  an  endorse- 
ment of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures;  and,  taken  in  connection 
with  the  preceding  verse,  which  is  a  part  of  the  same  sentence, 
amounts  to  a  statement,  that  these  Scriptures  and  the  system 
taught  by  Christ,  when  taken  together,  were  able  to  make  Tim- 
othy wise  unto  salvation. 

The  apostle,  having  thus  far  spoken  of  tradition  and  the  Old 
Testament  Scriptures,  commences  a  new  sentence,  and  speaks  of 
the  character  of  all  Scripture,  without  distinction,  in  this  way : 

"  All  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and  is  profita- 
ble for  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correction,  for  instruction  in 
righteousness :  that  the  man  of  God  may  be  perfect,  thoroughly 
furnished  unto  every  good  work." 

Now,  when  St.  Paul  says  that  all  Scripture  is  profitable  to 
produce  a  certain  end,  does  he  mean  to  say  that  it  is  alone  suffi- 


30  THE    LAW    OF   CHEIST. 

dent  f  Does  he  mean  to  say  to  Timothy,  "  the  Scripture  is  the 
only  rule  necessary,  and  that  tradition  which  I  have  just  com- 
mended, you  may  cast  aside  "  ?  In  other  words,  is  there  any 
thing  exclusive  in  the  form  of  expression  used  ?  I  cannot  so  un- 
derstand it.  On  the  contrary,  the  term  profitable  gives  to  the 
apostle's  language  a  limited  meaning,  and  shows  that  his  inten- 
tion was  not  to  exclude  tradition,  but  to  include  "  all  Scripture," 
as  being  profitable  to  produce  the  end  stated.  Two  or  more 
means  may  be  profitable  to  produce  the  same  given  end,  and 
we  may,  therefore,  speak  of  each  one  separately,  and  say  it  is 
profitable  for  that  purpose.  The  term,  in  this  place,  means  use- 
ful ;  advantageous ;  and  to  speak  of  the  sole  agent  in  producing 
the  indicated  end,  as  being  profitable,  would  seem  not  to  be  ac- 
curate. The  word  able  or  sufficient  would  express  such  exclu- 
sive meaning  better. 

And  when  we  are  told  in  Scripture,  in  one  place,  that  we 
are  justified  by  grace  ;  in  another,  by  faith;  and  in  one,  that  we 
are  saved  by  hope ;  in  a  second,  by  faith ;  in  a  third,  by  confession 
and  faith ;  in  a  fourth,  by  baptism ;  and  in  a  fifth,  by  keeping  the 
commandments,  we  cannot  say  that  these  expressions,  though 
much  stronger  than  the  word  profitable^  intended  to  exclude  all 
agents  in  justification  and  salvation,  except  one  only,  in  each  of 
the  cases  mentioned.  On  the  contrary,  we  must  understand 
that  all  these  agents  form  parts  of  one  entire  system,  and  all 
combine  to  produce  the  result  stated.  So  we  understand  St. 
Paul,  in  the  four  verses  under  consideration,  as  including  1,  Tra- 
dition ;  2,  the  Old  Testament ;  and  3,  all  Scripture,  as  composing 
but  parts  of  the  law,  and  all  being  profitable  to  qualify  a  min- 
ister for  every  good  work.  And  he  certainly  does  inculcate  all 
these  upon  Timothy,  and  could  not,  therefore,  have  intended  to 
exclude  any  one  or  more  of  them. 

But  the  language  of  St.  Paul,  in  portions  of  his  other  epis- 
tles, seems  still  more  explicit.  To  the  Corinthians  he  says  : 

"  ISTow  I  praise  you,  brethren,  that  you  remember  me  in  all 
things,  and  keep  the  ordinances  as  I  delivered  them  to  you." 
(1  Cor.  xi.  2.) 

To  the  Thessalonians  he  says  : 

"  Therefore,  brethren,  stand  fast,  and  hold  the  traditions 
which  ye  have  been  taught,  whether  by  word,  or  our  epistle." 


THE    LAW    OF    CHRIST.  31 

"  Now  we  command  you,  brethren,  in  the  name  of  oui  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  that  you  withdraw  yourselves  from  every  brother 
that  walketh  disorderly,  and  not  after  the  tradition  which  he 
received  of  us."  (2  Thess.  ii.  15,  iii.  6.) 

These  passages  are  very  much  to  the  point,  and  give  rise  to 
very  important  reflections. 

It  must  be  conceded  that  the  Thessalonians  had  been  taught 
the  entire  law  of  Christ ;  and  this  entire  law  the  apostle  calls 
"  the  traditions,"  whether  taught  by  word  or  epistle.  That 
which  was  taught  by  word  and  that  by  epistle  were  equally 
obligatory ;  and  they  were  both  placed  upon  the  same  footing, 
and  entitled  to  precisely  the  same  confidence  and  obedience. 
The  law,  as  taught  to  these  brethren,  consisted  of  two  parts, 
the  written  and  unwritten,  and,  in  these  forms,  was  obligatory 
upon  them.  Where  have  we  any  evidence  that  these  oral  teach- 
ings were  ever  reduced  to  writing?  There  is  none  by  Paul, 
for  the  command  to  hold  fast  both,  was  given  in  his  second 
and  last  epistle  to  the  Thessalonians.  If  these  oral  teachings 
were  so  necessary  to  these  Christians,  why  are  they  not  so  to 
us  ?  The  doctrines  taught  were  true,  and  were  the  doctrines 
taught  by  Christ. 

Where,  then,  is  the  evidence  in  the  Scriptures  that  the  writ- 
ten superseded  the  entire  unwritten  law  ?  The  kingdom  was 
for  many  years  governed  by  the  unwritten  law,  and  by  that 
only.  And  when  the  law  was  written,  it  was  only  in  part,  and 
upon  special  occasions ;  and  we  find  St.  Paul  mentioning  both 
parts  of  the  law,  and  commanding  both  parts  to  be  held  equally 
sacred,  for  the  reason  that  they  were  both  the  Word  of  God. 

Now,  in  opposition  to  the  general  principle,  that  a  body  of 
laws  once  obligatory  in  a  certain  form,  cannot  be  abrogated  in 
that  form,  unless  they  are  subsequently  all  written  out,  or  part- 
ly written,  and  those  not  written,  expressly  repealed ;  and  in 
violation  of  the  clear  language  of  St.  Paul,  commanding  his 
brethren  to  stand  fast  and  hold  both,  by  what  system  of  right 
reason  can  we  assume  thus  to  mutilate  a  great  and  sublime  code 
of  law,  by  leaving  out  "  many  and  important  truths  "  originally 
belonging  to  it  ?  And  if  the  apostles  had  so  intended,  would 
they  not  have  told  us  so  in  terms  not  to  be  mistaken  ?  Where 
is  that  authoritative  act  recorded,  which  every  principle  of 


32  THE    LAW    OF    CHRIST. 

sound  law,  and  of  reasonable  construction,  requires  to  have  been 
performed,  in  order  to  set  aside  an  entire  system  of  unwritten 
law,  first  authoritatively  established  and  put  in  practical  opera- 
tion by  Christ  and  His  apostles  ? 

§  10.  Of  the  alleged  incompatibility  of  the  Bible  and  Tradition. 

In  reference  to  this  question,  Dr.  Spring  has  certain  abstract, 
summary  positions,  which  I  examined  with  care.  He  says  : 

"  To  ascribe  infallibility  to  any  other  standard  of  truth  than 
the  Bible,  is  itself  casting  the  Bible  into  the  shade.  Two  infalli- 
ble standards  of  faith  cannot  be  ;  since,  if  they  differ,  one  must 
be  wrong,  and  if  they  do  not  differ,  they  are  the  same  thing." 
(Dis.  72.) 

The  imagination  cannot  conceive,  nor  the  tongue  of  man  ut- 
ter any  encomium  upon  the  Scriptures,  as  to  their  truth  and 
sublimity,  that  they  do  not  merit,  for  the  simple  reason,  they  are 
the  Word  of  God.  And,  perhaps,  nothing  can  add  to  the  beauty 
of  the  simple  statement  of  St.  Paul,  that  "  All  Scripture  is  given 
by  inspiration  of  God."  As  to  their  sacred  character,  there  is 
no  question. 

But  is  it  true  that  the  Scriptures  contain  the  entire  Word 
of  God  ?  And  if  they  do  not,  how  can  it  depreciate  the  written 
Word,  to  put  the  unwritten  Word  of  God  upon  the  same  foot- 
ing ?  Were  they  not  both  uttered  by  the  same  Infinite  Law- 
giver ?  Are  they  not  both  infallibly  true  ?  If  so,  how  does  it 
wrong  either  to  be  just  to  each,  and  to  both  ?  If  we  put  the 
two  parts  of  a  machine  together,  so  as  to  make  it  complete,  is 
this  a  wrong  to  either  ?  And  if  you  put  the  two  parts  of  an 
infallible  code  together,  and  thus  make  it  complete,  is  this  er- 
ror ?  is  this  confusion  ?  Or  is  it  order — "  heaven's  first  law  "  ? 
I  confess  that  I  could  not  understand  how  putting  both  parts  of 
a  code  together  could  depreciate  either.  It  would  seem  that 
they  were  both  honored,  and  the  true  intent  of  each  was  accom- 
plished. 

And  with  due  deference  to  the  opinion  of  the  learned  Divine, 
I  submit  that  the  whole  is  resolved  into  these  two  questions : 
1.  Does  the  Bible  contain  the  entire  code  as  originally  delivered 
by  Christ  and  His  apostles  f  2.  And  if  not,  was  that  por* 
tion  of  the  unwritten  law,  not  recorded  in  the  Bible,  repealed  f 


THE   LAW    OF   CHRIST.  33 

If  the  Bible  does  not  contain  the  entire  code  now  obligatory, 
to  say  that  it  is  the  only  rule,  is  to  do  it  as  clear  injustice,  as  that 
attempted  towards  Sts.  Paul  and  Barnabas,  when  the  people 
wished  to  sacrifice  to  them  as  Gods.  And  such  a  course  would 
be  equally  unjust  to  Tradition,  as  withholding  from  it  that 
which  is  its  just  due. 

And  when  the  learned  Divine  says,  "  Two  infallible  stand- 
ards of  faith  there  cannot  be,"  (alluding  to  Scripture  and  Tra- 
dition,) he  seems  to  overlook  his  own  clear  language,  uttered  in 
a  preceding  page,  where  he  says,  as  already  quoted,  speaking 
of  the  Christian  law :  "  There  is  no  absurdity  in  supposing  it  to 
be  partly  oral  and  partly  written,  while  both  might  be  amplified 
and  interpreted  by  one  another."  (Dis.  12.)  And  in  making 
another  charge  against  the  Catholic  Church,  he  seems  to  me  to 
answer  himself  very  fully,  as  to  the  supposed  incompatibility  of 
Scripture  and  Tradition. 

"  Romanists,"  he  says,  "  teach  the  doctrine  that  truth  be- 
comes truth  because  it  is  believed,  and  that  it  isfirst  believed  and 
'hen  true,  whereas,  independently  of  its  being  believed,  it  has 
an  unchanging  and  everlasting  existence."  (Dis.  22.) 

If  truth  has  an  everlasting  and  unchangeable  existence,  then 
all  that  Christ  and  His  apostles  did  utter,  whether  written  or 
unwritten,  is  equally  true,  in  both  forms,  and  wholly  consistent. 
All  the  facts  that  ever  did  exist — all  the  events  that  ever  did 
occur — all  the  truths  ever  uttered  by  God  or  man,  were  con- 
sistent with  all  the  others,  and  harmonious  in  every  particular. 
How,  then,  can  there  be  any  contradiction  or  inconsistency  in 
the  words  of  Christ  and  His  apostles — those  "  many  and  im- 
portant truths,"  as  the  learned  Divine  admits,  "  that  were  never 
committed  to  writing,"  and  those  that  were  so  committed? 

And  when  he  says  that  if  these  standards  "  do  not  differ, 
they  are  the  same  thing,"  I  understand  him ;  but  when  he  says 
that  "  if  they  differ,  then  one  must  be  wrong,'*  I  cannot  see 
"  whereunto  this  must  grow."  He  himself  has  told  us  that 
"  many  and  important  truths  uttered  by  Christ  and  His  apos- 
tles were  never  committed  to  writing ; "  and  of  course  these 
truths  "  never  committed  to  writing "  must  be  different  from 
those  written;  and  yet  he  admits  they  were  truths,  and  if 
5 


34:  THE    LAW    OF    CHRIST. 

truths,  they  must  have  an  "  everlasting  existence,"  and,  there* 
fore,  "  must  [not]  be  wrong." 

Under  the  Catholic  theory,  the  Scriptures  and  Tradition  are 
held  to  be  but  constituent  parts  of  one  whole  system  of  law 
each  part  containing  nothing  but  the  truth,  and  both  parts, 
taken  together,  only  containing  all  the  truth.  There  can  be  no 
theoretical  contradiction  or  inconsistency  herein ;  and  there  can 
be  none,  in  point  of  fact,  unless  truths  have  either  been  lost  or 
errors  added  to  the  system,  by  one  or  both  of  these  parts.  And 
when  Dr.  Spring  maintains  that  there  must  be  an  incompati- 
bility, I  must  think  him  wholly  mistaken ;  or  I  must  say,  that 
the  first  part  of  Scripture  which  was  written,  was  itself  incom- 
patible with  that  portion  of  the  truth  not  then  recorded. 

It  is  true,  that  in  systems  of  civil  law,  composed  of  two 
parts,  written  and  unwritten,  there  is  always  a  provision,  that 
where  they  conflict,  the  written  law  shall  prevail,  as  being  the 
last  will  of  the  legislature.  This  provision  is  predicated  upon 
the  ground  that  human  legislation  is  imperfect — that  it  maj 
need  amendment — that  the  lawmaker  is  actually  fallible,  and 
for  that  reason,  may  contradict  himself.  Hence  such  a  provision 
becomes  necessary.  But  the  same  principle  cannot  apply  to  a 
system  of  law  made  by  Christ.  The  same  liability  to  imperfect 
legislation  cannot  exist.  The  nature  and  character  of  the  Law- 
giver,  and,  therefore,  of  His  law  itself,  being  as  different  from 
human  legislation,  as  fallibility  and  infallibility  from  each  other, 
this  principle,  so  necessary  to  the  fallible  system,  is,  for  that 
very  reason,  inapplicable  to  the  infallible. 

And  when  the  learned  Divine  asserts  that  "  Romanists  teach 
the  doctrine  that  truth  becomes  truth  because  it  is  believed,  and 
that  it  is  first  believed  and  then  true,"  with  due  deference  I 
must  say,  that  I  never  could  find  any  verification  of  such  a  state- 
ment. So  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  discover  the  true  teaching 
of  the  Catholic  Church,  he  has  precisely  reversed  her  maxim, 
for  she  holds,  not  that  "  truth  becomes  truth  because  believed," 
but  that  it  is  believed,  because  it  is  truth.  True,  she  lays  down 
this  rule  in  substance,  that  the  fact  of  a  certain  doctrine  having 
at  all  times  been  believed  and  taught  by  the  Church,  as  a  truth 
coming  down  from  the  apostles,  is  conclusive  evidence  to  show 
that  such  a  provision  was  proclaimed  originally  by  Christ  and 


THE   LAW    OF   CHRIST.  35 

his  apostles.  And  this  belief  of  the  Church  is  treated  by  Dr. 
Paley  as  evidence  of  the  truth  of  Christianity  itself,  as  we  shall 
hereafter  see.  Blackstone  says,  as  we  have  seen,  that  the  judges 
of  the  courts  are  the  depositaries  of  the  common  law — that  they 
determine  what  it  is — and  that  their  decision  is  the  most  author- 
itative evidence  that  can  be  given  of  the  prior  existence  of  such 
a  custom.  But  the  learned  commentator  did  not  mean  to  say 
that  such  a  custom  became  a  law  because  of  these  decisions ;  for 
the  judges  are  not  delegated  to  pronounce  a  new  law,  but  to 
declare  and  maintain  the  old  one.  The  courts  only  declare  the 
law — the  legislative  power  makes  it.  The  law  was  in  existence 
before  the  courts  so  declared  it.  So,  with  the  Catholic  Church. 
Under  her  theory,  she  is  the  depositary  of  the  entire  law,  not 
delegated  to  pronounce  a  new  law,  but  simply  to  declare  and 
expound  the  old  one.  In  theory  her  decisions  do  not  create  a 
law — do  not  make  that  law  which  was  not  before  such — but  are 
simply  evidence  of  the  law  "  once  delivered  to  the  saints." 

The  fact  being  undeniable  and  conceded,  that  "  many  and 
important  truths  uttered  by  Christ  and  His  apostles  were  never 
committed  to  writing  ; "  and,  therefore,  not  to  be  found  in  the 
New  Testament,  it  is  difficult,  upon  any  system  of  sound  logic, 
to  reject  Tradition.  Such  a  rejection  leads  to  so  much  confu- 
sion and  contradiction,  that  I  was  wholly  unable  to  find  any 
warrant,  either  in  Scripture  or  common  sense,  to  support  it.  It 
is  derogatory  to  Christ,  as  a  lawgiver,  and  to  the  Church  as  an 
institution  founded  by  Him. 

To  maintain  that  God  created  any  thing  in  vain,  is  to  im- 
pute to  Him  an  infirmity,  deeply  disparaging  to  His  character 
as  Creator.  We  may  not  be  able  to  comprehend  the  exact  use 
for  which  portions  of  the  universe  were  designed,  but  we  can 
see  the  purpose  for  which  most  portions  of  the  visible  creation 
were  made ;  and  the  consistency  and  beauty  of  these  portions 
should  satisfy  us  that  nothing  was  made  in  vain,  though  it  be 
true  that  our  limited  intellects  will  not  enable  us  to  scan  the  en- 
tire creation  at  a  glance,  and  designate  the  precise  purpose  for 
which  each  portion  was  made.  So,  if  we  say  that  Christ  made 
any  portion  of  His  code  of  law  in  vain,  we  impute  to  Him  an 
idle  frivolity  deeply  disparaging  to  His  dignity  as  a  Divine 
Lawgiver. 


36  THE    LAW    OF   CHRIST. 

§  11.  The  true  theory. 

It  occurred  to  me  that  Christ  would  never  make  a  system 
of  law,  and  permit  it  to  be  either  mutilated  or  lost ;  that  He 
never  would  have  committed  His  law  to  the  world  at  large — to 
aliens  and  strangers — to  take  its  chances  of  preservation,  like 
the  teachings  of  mere  philosophers ;  that  He  would  perpetuate 
it  entire,  either  by  His  special  superintendence,  or  by  deposit- 
ing it  with  an  inspired  and  protected  guardian  ;  that  the  latter 
method  was  not  only  most  in  accordance  with  reason  and  His 
system  of  governing  men,  but  with  the  express  declarations  of 
Scripture ;  and  that  if  He  adopted  either  of  these  methods,  the 
truths  of  the  system,  written  or  unwritten,  would  alike  come 
down  to  us  as  originally  given,  that  we  might  enjoy,  if  we  would, 
the  same  advantages  as  the  Christians  of  the  early  Church.  And 
I  could  not  conceive  why  Christ  should  build  a  Church  against 
which  the  gates  of  hell  should  never  prevail,  and  which  St.  Paul 
declared  to  be  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth,  and  yet  not 
commit  the  very  law  intended  for  the  government  of  this  great 
institution  to  its  keeping.  The  idea  that  Christ,  as  a  Divine  Leg- 
islator, should  organize  an  institution,  such  as  He  and  Paul  de- 
scribed it,  and  yet  it  be  incapable  of  knowing  its  own  faith,  and 
not  a  credible  witness  of  the  same — thus  creating  an  association 
of  living  men,  wide  as  the  world,  and  durable  as  time,  and  yet 
so  frail  and  unreliable  as  not  to  deserve  the  respect  and  confi- 
dence due  even  to  ordinary  civil  institutions,  would  seem,  upon 
its  face,  to  be  wholly  inadmissible. 

But  it  did  seem  to  me  that  those  who  reject  Tradition,  under 
the  idea  of  attaining  greater  certainty,  did,  indeed,  increase  the 
uncertainty  ;  not  only  by  destroying  a  part  of  the  law  itself,  but 
by  attacking  the  credibility  of  the  only  proper  and  reliable  wit- 
ness to  the  inspiration  and  authenticity  of  the  entire  canon  of 
Scripture.  By  conceding  that  "  many  and  important  truths " 
of  the  system  have  never  been  written,  and  must,  therefore,  be 
lost,  because  the  testimony  of  the  Church  is  unworthy  of  belief, 
the  character  of  our  Lord  as  a  lawgiver,  and  of  His  Church  as 
a  competent  witness,  is  depreciated,  and  the  whole  subject  left 
in  irremediable  doubt. 

In  the  Catholic  theory,  there  is  a  combination  of  all  the 


THE    LAW    OF    CHRIST.  37 


proofs,  as  well  as  beauty,  strength,  and  consistency. 
motive  of  credibility  and  every  proof  is  therein  preserved.  In 
this  theory  "our  Lord,"  as  Mr.  Campbell  justly  says,  "antici- 
pated the  future  in  all  his  precepts,  and  spoke  with  an  eye  to  it, 
as  well  as  to  the  men  of  his  own  time."  (C.  &  P.'s  Debate,  14.) 
Knowing  that  the  art  of  printing,  would  not  be  invented  for  four- 
teen centuries,  and  that  the  great  mass  of  men  would  always  be* 
unable  to  read  ;  and  that,  therefore,  an  entire  written  law  inter- 
preted by  each  individual  for  himself  in  the  last  resort,  would 
be  impracticable,  our  Lord,  for  these  and  other  reasons,  adopt- 
ed a  method  that  must  be  practical  everywhere,  and  at  all 
periods  ;  and,  therefore,  promulgated  His  law  orally,  and  com- 
manded His  apostles  and  their  successors  to  do  the  same  thing, 
leaving  such  portions  of  the  law  to  be  reduced  to  writing  as 
after  circumstances  might  render  prudent  and  advisable.  And 
as  the  different  modes  of  promulgation  and  transmission  of  laws 
by  writing  and  tradition  have  each  their  advantages,  a  combi- 
nation of  both  methods  is  most  efficient  and  useful  ;  so,  the  apos- 
tles and  others,  inspired  by  God,  wrote  parts  of  the  history  and 
laws  of  the  early  Church,  and  committed  the  same  to  the 
Church,  as  also  the  unwritten  traditions,  for  safe  transmission, 
attestation,  and  practical  administration.  By  this  theory,  the 
Church  is  the  inspired  depositary,  witness,  and  interpreter  of 
the  entire  code  left  by  Christ  and  His  apostles,  so  that  no  part 
of  the  law  can  be  lost,  and  the  code  remains  entire,  without 
mutilation  or  change  ;  and  the  work  of  Christ,  and  the  institu- 
tion founded  by  Him,  remain  perfect  and  complete,  and  worthy 
of  the  character  of  a  Divine  Architect. 

§  12.   The  testimony  of  the  Ancient  Fathers. 

In  every  examination  regarding  any  question  of  fact  connect- 
ed with  the  history  of  the  early  Church,  we  must  necessarily 
consult  the  Ancient  Fathers  —  the  historians  and  ecclesiastical 
writers  of  that  period.  The  Catholic  Church  does  not  esteem 
each  one  of  them  as  individually  inspired.  They  are  held  to  be 
simple,  but  authentic  witnesses  to  matters  of  fact,  to  wit  :  what 
were  the  doctrines  held,  and  the  observances  kept  by  the  Church 
in  their  day  f  If  the  Church  held  certain  doctrines,  and  kept 


38  THE    LAW    OF    CHRIST. 

certain  observances,  then  these  are  held  to  be  true  y.  and  as  to 
the  historical  fact,  the  testimony  of  the  Fathers  is  heard. 
In  his  debate  with  Bishop  Purcell,  Mr.  Campbell  said : 
"  Among  Protestants,  the  reason  and  authority  of  religious 
belief  and  practice  is,  '  Thus  saith  the  Lord.'  It  is  not  important 
to  ascertain  when  any  opinion  or  practice  began,  nor  who  in- 
troduced it ;  but  if  it  be  not  in  the  Bible,  no  matter  how  an- 
cient it  may  be,  it  wants  apostolic  sanction,  for  the  apostles 
sanction  only  what  was  written  and  ordained  before  their  death. 
St.  Clement,  and  St.  Ignatius,  and  St.  Irenseus,  and  all  the  other 
saints  in  the  Roman  calendar,  were  born  too  late  to  sanction 
any  article  of  faith  or  morals  by  their  vote."  (Debate,  277.) 

In  this  extract,  Mr.  0.  assumes  that  the  Bible  contains  all 
the  Word  of  God  now  obligatory  upon  us,  and  that,  consequent- 
ly, it  is  not  important  to  know  "  when  a  practice  or  opinion  be- 
gan, nor  who  introduced  it ; "  and  from  this  position  it  would 
seem  that  the  authority  of  all  preceding  ages,  even  as  to  questions 
of  mere  construction  of  the  written  Word,  is  wholly  unimpor- 
tant ;  for  if  the  opinions  and  practices  of  former  ages,  especially 
of  the  early  Church,  be  of  any  authority  and  force  as  to  the  true 
construction  of  Scripture,  then  it  is  important  to  know  when 
any  opinion  or  practice  began.  If,  on  the  contrary,  the  faith 
and  practice  of  the  Church  in  the  days  immediately  succeeding 
the  apostles  be  of  no  validity,  when  compared  with  the  contra- 
dictory Protestant  constructions  of  the  Scriptures,  then  Mr.  C. 
does  take  the  consistent  ground.  For,  when  a  question  of  con- 
struction arises,  if  the  authority  of  the  ancient  Church  is  to  be 
consulted  at  all,  and  it  differs  from  Protestant  construction,  the 
issue  must  be  met,  whether  the  united  construction  of  the  .early 
Church,  possessing  all  her  superior  advantages,  and  tried,  as  she 
was,  in  the  fires  of  persecution,  is  superior  or  inferior  to  the  in- 
dividual and  contradictory  constructions  of  those  living  so  many 
centuries  later.  Such  a  question  must  come  up  in  the  minds  of 
all  sincere  persons  who  seek  the  truth  for  its  own  sake.  And, 
admitting  for  the  sake  of  the  argument  only,  that  there  is  no  in- 
fallibility in  the  Church,  and  that  those  alleged  gross  errors 
could  have  been  introduced  into  the  early  Church,  and  at  the 
same  time  created  no  disturbances,  no  divisions ;  conceding  all 
this,  still  the  question  must  arise,  Whose  disputed  constructor 


THE   LAW    OF   CHRIST.  39 

is  most  worthy  of  confidence  ¥  Who  had  the  best  opportuni- 
ties to  know  ?  Who  did  most  for  Christianity  ?  Who  suffered, 
labored,  and  accomplished  most  ?  Who  gave  the  most  conclu- 
sive proofs  of  sincerity  and  heroic  devotion  ?  Who  spread 
Christianity  over  the  world,  and  who  spread  divisions  ?  If  the 
authority  of  the  Fathers  is  to  be  admitted,  even  in  questions  of 
construction,  the  sincere  inquirer  must  ask  and  answer  these 
interrogations. 

And  as  to  the  position  of  Mr.  C.,  that  the  saints  were  born 
too  late  to  sanction  any  article  of 'faith  by  their  vote,  he  is  right, 
provided  he  means  to  say  that  they  had  no  right  to  create  and 
make  new  additions  to  the  law,  and  therefore  could  exercise  no 
legislative  power  as  to  matters  of  faith  or  morals.  Whether 
the  vote  he  speaks  of  was  to  be  given  as  legislators  or  as  judi- 
cial officers,  I  could  not  tell. 

But  in  his  debate  with  Mr.  Rice,  some  years  later,  in  speak- 
ing of  the  Greek  and  Latin  Fathers  as  visionaries,  mystics,  and 
fond  of  old  wives'  fables,  he  says :  "  But  I  regard  them  as  faith- 
ful witnesses  of  facts.  I  receive  their  testimony  as  honest  men." 
(C.  &  R.'s  Debate,  163.)  And  when  speaking  upon  the  propo- 
sition that  "  Christian  baptism  is  for  the  remission  of  past  sins," 
he  quotes  extensively  from  the  Fathers,  and  says,  among  other 
things,  "  If  neither  the  Bible,  nor  the  Confession,  nor  the  Greek 
and  Latin  Fathers  are  to  be  understood  nor  believed,  when  af- 
firming that  baptism  is  for  the  remission  of  sins,  what  kind  of 
evidence  could  satisfy  him  ?  "  (D.  456.)  And  Mr.  Rice  is  equally 
careful  to  call  up  the  authority  of  the  Ancient  Fathers,  when 
they  are  on  his  side  of  the  question.  In  the  debate  regarding 
the  baptism  of  infants,  he  says: 

•  "  For  let  it  be  distinctly  understood,  I  appeal  to  the  early 
Christian  Fathers,  not  for  their  opinions,  but  I  call  them  up  as 
witnesses  to  a  matter  of  fact,  viz.,  that  in  their  day,  and  so 
far  as  they  know  to  the  days  of  the  apostles,  the  baptism  of 
infants  was  universally  practised."  (D.  406.) 

I  could  not  but  remark  the  gratification  shown  by  each  de- 
bater when  he  found  himself  in  company  with  these  "  visionaries 
and  mystics."  Under  such  circumstances  he  failed  not  to 
"  breathe  freer  and  deeper." 


40  THE   LAW   OF   CHKIST. 


§  13.    Of  the  rules  to  be  observed  in  consulting  the  Fathers. 

The  question  whether  a  certain  doctrine  was  held  or  a  cer- 
tain  observance  kept  by  the  Ancient  Church,  is  simply  a  ques- 
tion of  fact,  and  can  be  the  subject  of  historical  examination  and 
proof.  If  the  ancient  Church  held  a  certain  doctrine,  is  that 
fact  evidence  that  the  doctrine  is  true  ?  If  the  infallibility  of 
the  Church  is  conceded,  there  can  be  no  doubt ;  but  if  that  be 
disputed,  the  great  difficulty  of  introducing  such  a  doctrine  into 
the  Church,  under  the  received  maxims  she  did  then  hold,  and 
the  vigilance,  sincerity,  and  means  of  detection  then  existing,  is 
certainly  a  most  powerful  and  decisive  proof  with  that  Christian 
who  admits  that  the  Church  started  right. 

Protestant  writers,  in  defending  Christianity,  assume  the 
ground  taken  by  Dr.  Paley,  when  he  says : 

"  The  success  of  a  religion  founded  upon  a  miraculous  history, 
shows  the  credit  which  was  given  to  the  history  ;  and  this 
credit,  under  the  circumstances  in  which  it  was  given — i.  e.,  by 
persons  capable  of  knowing  the  truth,  and  interested  to  inquire 
after  it — is  evidence  of  the  reality  of  the  history,  and,  by  conse- 
quence, of  the  truth  of  the  religion."  (Ev.  of  Chr.) 

The  learned  Divine  was  right.  The  credit  given  to  such  a 
story  by  such  persons  is  evidence  of  its  truth.  Applying  the 
same  correct  principle  to  the  case  in  hand,  it  would  seem  to  be 
true  that  the  success  of  certain  doctrines  and  observances  in  the 
early  Church  shows  the  credit  that  was  given  to  them ;  and  this 
credit,  under  the  circumstances  in  which  it  was  given — i.  e.,  by 
persons  not  only  capable  of  knowing  the  truth,  but  who  did 
know  it,  (because  first  well  instructed,)  and  interested  to  pre- 
serve it,  and  also  vigilant  in  doing  so — is  evidence  of  the  reality 
and  truth  of  such  doctrines  and  observances.  For  it  seems  to 
me  clear,  that  if  persons  were  interested  in  inquiring  into  the 
truth  of  this  miraculous  history  in  the  first  instance,  then,  after 
they  did  believe  it,  they  were  the  more  interested  in  inquiring 
mto  and  preserving  the  true  faith  just  as  delivered. 

And  as  to  the  testimony  of  the  Fathers,  in  reference  to  mat- 
ters of  fact,  as  distinguished  from  their  individual  opinions, 
(when  considered  by  persons  inquiring  for  the  true  Church,)  it 
seems  t<  me  that  the  following  positions  are  just  and  reasonable  : 


THE   LAW   OF   CHKIST.  41 

1.  When  a  Father  states  a  doctrine  or  practice  without  hesi- 
tation, and  without  any  statement  that  it  is  his  private  opinion, 
he  must  be  held  to  intend  to  give  the  faith  or  practice  of  the 
Church,  unless  there  is  something  in  the  context  to  show  the 
contrary. 

2.  That  when  a  Father  sanctions  a  doctrine  or  practice  with- 
out contradiction  of  any  other  Father,  then  such  doctrine  or 
practice  must  be  held  as  those  of  the  Church,  and  the  consent 
of  the  others  presumed  from  their  silence. 

3.  That  when  a  doctrine  or  practice  is  shown  to  be  in  the 
Church,  for  instance,  in  the  fourth  or  fifth  century,  it  must  be 
presumed,  prima  facie,  to  have  been  in  the  Church  from  the  be- 
ginning, unless  stated  to  be  a  new  opinion  or  practice. 

4.  That  though  there  may  be  seeming  discrepancies  in  re- 
gard to  a  few  points  where  one  or  two  Fathers  are  apparently 
in  conflict  with  the  great  majority ;  still,  the  clear  testimony  of 
the  great  body  of  the  Fathers  must  prevail  over  the  doubtful 
language  of  the  few. 

In  reference  to  the  first  rule,  it  would  seem  to  be  evident 
that  no  Christian  writer  would  express  a  Christian  truth  with- 
out hesitation,  when  he  meant  only  to  be  understood  as  giving 
his  individual  opinion.  Dr.  Paley,  in  speaking  of  the  character 
of  the  testimony  of  the  Fathers  in  reference  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment, says : 

"  Whenever  any  thing  now  read  in  the  Gospels  is  met  with 
in  an  early  Christian  writing,  it  is  always  observed  to  stand 
there  as  acknowledged  truth ;  i.  e.,  to  be  introduced  without 
hesitation,  doubt,  or  apology." 

If  uttered  "  without  hesitation,  doubt,  or  apology,"  it  stands 
as  "  acknowledged  truth  /"  that  is,  it  shows  the  testimony  of  the 
writer,  that  such  was  the  received  Scripture. 

And  as  respects  the  second  rule,  it  would  seem  to  be  clear. 
It  must  be  conceded  that  the  rule  of  law,  which  says  that  one 
affirmative  witness  is  worth  more  than  several  negative  wit- 
nesses, is  founded  on  common  sense  and  general  experience. 
And  this  is  especially  true  of  the  Fathers,  who  did  not  all  write 
upon  the  same,  but  upon  different,  subjects.  As  a  matter  of 
course,  they  would  generally  speak  only  to  the  subject  discussed. 

In  regard  to  the  third  rule,  it  may  be  remarked,  that  it 


4:2  THE   LAW    OF   CHJBI8T. 

would  seem  entirely  unjust  to  suppose,  that  an  honest  historian 
relating  a  doctrine  or  practice  as  then  existing  in  the  Church, 
without  hesitation  as  an  acknowledged  truth,  and  not  stating  it 
to  be  new,  or  giving  any  date  when  it  was  introduced,  is  yet  to 
be  held  as  intending  to  state  so.  The  law  presumes  ever} 
officer  to  do  his  duty,  (Starkie  on  Ev.,  Part  i.,  p.  79,)  and  surely 
heresy  is  not  to  be  presumed  to  be  in  the  Church,  contrary  to 
the  promises  of  Christ.  And  the  light  presumption  that  pre- 
ceding authors. would  have  mentioned  such  fact,  had  it  been 
true,  is  overcome  by  the  overwhelming  presumption,  that  when- 
ever it  was  introduced,  it  would  have  caused  such  divisions  as 
must  have  been  mentioned  by  some  writer.  We  have  the  time, 
place,  and  person  given,  in  reference  to  the  heresies  of  that  day ; 
and  the  acknowledged  vigilance  of  the  Church,  taken  in  connec- 
tion with  the  circumstances  of  the  time,  would  always  exclude 
such  a  conclusion. 

"  Now  omission,"  says  Dr.  Paley,  "  is  at  all  times  a  very 
uncertain  ground  of  objection.  We  perceive  it,  not  only  in  the 
comparison  of  different  writers,  but  even  in  the  same  writer, 
when  compared  with  himself.  There  are  a  great  many  particu- 
lars, and  some  of  them  of  importance,  mentioned  by  Josephua 
in  his  Antiquities,  which,  as  we  should  have  supposed,  ought  to 
have  been  put  down  by  him  in  their  place  in  the  Jewish  wars. 
Suetonius,  Tacitus,  Dio  Cassius,  have  all  three  written  of  the 
reign  of  Tiberias.  Each  has  mentioned  many  things  omitted 
by  the  rest,  yet  no  objection  is  from  thence  taken  to  the  credit 
of  their  histories." 

These,  and  other  remarks,  the  learned  author  makes  in  an- 
swer to  the  objection  made  by  infidels,  that  the  Gospels  contra- 
dict each  other,  because  one  mentions  many  of  the  most  impor- 
tant facts,  omitted  by  all  the  others.  For  example,  that 
stupendous  miracle  of  Christ,  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus,  and 
that  most  beautiful  parable  of  the  Prodigal  Son,  are  each  only 
mentioned  in  one  Gospel. 

And  in  reference  to  the  fourth  rule,  its  justice  would  seem  to 
be  plain.  If  a  court  or  jury  were  to  reject  the  testimony  often 
good  witnesses,  because  of  the  doubtful  contradiction  of  one, 
then  we  might  reject  all  history  where  there  is  a  single  historian 
who  may  seem  to  dispute  a  single  fact.  As  Dr.  Paley  very 


THE   LAW   OF   CHRIST.  43 

justly  says :  "  The  usual  character  of  human  testimony  is  substai> 
tial  truth  under  circumstantial  variety."  The  philosophic  Star- 
kie,  and  the  accurate  Greenleaf,  have  both  adopted  this  position 
as  true,  and  every  lawyer  and  jurist  knows  it  to  be  so,  from  the 
most  ample  experience. 

"  Dr.  Middleton,"  says  Dr.  Paley,  "  contended  that  the  dif- 
ferent hours  of  the  day  assigned  to  the  crucifixion  of  Christ,  by 
John,  and  by  the  other  evangelists,  did  not  admit  of  the  recon- 
cilement which  learned  men  had  proposed,  and  then  concludes 
the  discussion  with  this  hard  remark :  '  We  must  be  forced, 
with  several  of  the  critics,  to  leave  the  difficulty  as  we  found  it, 
chargeable  with  all  the  consequences  of  manifest  inconsistency.' 
But  what  are  these  consequences  ?  By  no  means  the  discredit- 
ing of  the  history  as  to  the  principal  fact,  by  a  repugnance 
(even  supposing  that  repugnance  be  not  resolvable  into  different 
modes  of  computation)  in  the  time  of  day  in  which  it  is  said  to 
have  taken  place.''  (Ev.  Oh.) 

The  learned  writer  also  notices  several  cases  of  apparent  dis- 
crepancy between  the  New  Testament  writers  and  Josephus 
and  the  Roman  historians,  as  also  between  the  New  and  Old 
Testaments ;  such,  for  instance,  as  the  "  taxing,"  when  Christ 
was  born,  the  statement  in  the  third  chapter  of  Luke,  "  Now  in 
the  fifteenth  year  of  the  reign  of  Tiberius  Caesar,"  the  case  of 
Theudas,  Acts  v.  36,  and  the  case  of  Zacharias  son  of  Barachias, 
in  Matt,  xxiii.  34. 

These  discrepancies  may  be  but  apparent  and  not  real ;  but 
at  this  day  we  are  not  in  possession,  perhaps,  of  the  true  expla- 
nation. To  reject,  therefore,  the  great  body  of  history,  because 
of  a  few  apparent,  or  even  positive  contradictions,  would  seem 
to  be  a  very  erroneous  practice.  And  as  in  Scripture,  so  in  the 
Fathers,  there  may  be  apparent  discrepancies  in  a  few  instances  ; 
but  we  must  look  to  the  particular  circumstances  under  which 
they  wrote,  in  order  to  do  them  justice. 

§  14.  Extracts  from  the  Fathers. 

Of  St.  Ignatius,  the  holy  martyr,  and  disciple  of  St.  John, 
Eusebius  says : 

"  He  warns  them  to  be  specially  on  their  guard  against  the 
heresies  just  then  first  springing  up  and  increasing.  He  exhorts 


4:4:  THE    LAW    OF   CHRIST. 

them  to  hold  firmly  the  tradition  of  the  apostles,  which,  for  se- 
curity, he  thought  it  necessary,  as  a  witness,  to  confirm  in  writ- 
ing." (H.  E.,  1.  iii.,  c.  36.) 

"  So  also  Poly  carp,"  says  St.  Irenseus,  "  who  not  only  had 
been  instructed  by  apostles,  and  had  conversed  with  many  who 
had  seen  the  Lord,  but  was  also  appointed  by  apostles,  bishop 
of  Smyrna,  in  Asia.  Him  we  saw  in  our  early  youth.  *  *  * 
The  things  which  he  had  learned  from  the  apostles,  those  he 
uniformly  taught,  which  also  he  delivered  to  that  church,  which 
alone  are  true.  To  these  all  the  churches  throughout  Asia,  and 
they  who  to  this  day  have  succeeded  Polycarp,  bear  testimony, 
being  a  witness  of  truth  more  credible  and  more  faithful  than 
Valentinius  and  Marcian,  and  the  rest  of  the  perverse  thinkers. 
*  *  *  But  the  church  also  in  Ephesus,  founded  indeed  by 
Paul,  but  with  which  John  remained  until  the  days  of  Trajan,  is 
a,  veracious  witness  of  the  tradition  of  the  apostles."  (St.  Ire- 
nseus adv.  Haeres.,  1.  iii.,  c.  3,  n.  4,  p.  175.) 

"  Therefore  we  ought  to  avoid  them,  but  to  cling  with  the 
utmost  care  to  whatever  is  of  the  church,  and  to  hold  fast  to 
the  tradition  of  truth."  (Adv.  Hseres.,  1.  iii.,  ch.  4,  p.  178—9.) 

"  But  when,  on  the  other  hand,  we  challenge  them  [heretics] 
to  that  tradition  which  is  from  the  apostles,  which  is  preserved 
in  the  churches,  through  the  succession  of  presbyters,  they  are 
adverse  to  tradition,  saying,  that  being  themselves  not  only 
wiser  than  presbyters,  but  even  than  apostles,  they  have  dis- 
covered the  genuine  truth.  *  *  *  Thus  it  turns  out  that,  at 
last,  they  neither  assent  to  the  Scriptures  nor  tradition."  (Id.,  1. 
iii.,  c.  2,  n.  1,  2.) 

"  These  dogmas  are  not  in  accordance  with  the  church  ;  *  *  * 
these  dogmas  the  presbyters  before  us,  and  who  shone  together 
with  the  apostles,  delivered  not  to  you."  (Frag.  Ep.  ad  Flavi- 
num  t.  i.,  preserved  in  Eusebius  H.,  1.  v.,  c.  20.) 

And  St.  Clement  of  Alexandria,  G.  C.,  says,  among  many 
other  things,  "Let  him  go  to  the  real  light — to  the  truth, 
which  in  what  is  written,  indicates  the  things  not  written." 

"  But  these  were  preserved  the  true  tradition  of  the  blessed 
doctrine  directly  from  Peter,  and  James,  and  John,  and  Paul, 
the  holy  apostles,  having  received  it  in  succession,  the  son  from 
the  father,"  &c. 


THE   LAW   OF   CHRIST.  45 

"  There  were  some  things  delivered  to  the  Hebrews  without 
writing."  (Strom.,  1.  v.,  p.  682-5.) 

"So  he  has  ceased  to  be  a  man  of  God,  and  faithful  to  the 
Lord,  who  has  thrown  aside  the  ecclesiastical  tradition,  and 
plunged  into  the  opinions  of  human  heresies."  (Id.,  1.  vii.,  p.  890.) 

And  Tertullian  says  :  "  For  these  and  such  like  rules,  if  thou 
requirest  a  law  in  the  Scriptures,  thou  shalt  find  none.  Tra- 
dition will  be  pleaded  to  thee  as  originating,  custom  as  confirm- 
ing, and  faith  as  observing  them."  (De  Corona,  p.  101-2.) 

"  That  was  different  so  it  had  been  handed .  down  ;  now, 
that  which  has  been  handed  down,  that  was  true,  as  having 
been  handed  down  by  those  whose  it  was  to  hand  down." 
(De  Carne  Christi,  n.  2,  p.  308.) 

These  are  taken  from  writers  of  the  second  century,  and  are 
only  a  part  of  their  testimony.  To  the  same  effect  I  might 
quote  St.  Serapian,  G.  0. ;  Caius,  L.  C. ;  Origen,  G.  C.  ;  St. 
Hippolytus,  G.  C. ;  Firmilian,  G.  C. ;  and  St.  Cypiian,  L.  C., 
all  of  the  third  century;  and  Eusebius,  G.  C. ;  St.  Julius,  L.  C. ; 
Liberius,  L.  C. ;  St.  Hilary,  L.  C. ;  St.  Athanasius,  G.  C. ;  St. 
Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  G.  C.;  St.  Ephrem  Syrus,  G.  C. ;  St.  Greg- 
ory  of  Nissa,  G.  C. ;  St.  Gregory  of  Nazianzum,  G.  C. ;  St. 
Basil,  G.  C. ;  St.  Pacian,  S.  C. ;  St.  Damasus,  L.  C. ;  Faustinus, 
L.  C.;  St.  Siricius,  L.  C. ;  Theophilus  of  Alex.,  G.  C. ;  St. 
Epiphanius,  G.  C. ;  St.  Ambrose,  L.  C.,  and  St.  Jerom,  L.  C., 
of  the  fourth  century;  and  I  will  make  two  extracts  from 
Origen,  the  learned  Greek  Father  of  the  third  century  : 

u  We  are  not  to  credit  these  men,  nor  to  go  out  from  the 
first  and  the  ecclesiastical  tradition ;  nor  to  believe  otherwise 
than  as  the  churches  of  God  have  by  succession  transmitted  to 
us."  (T.  iii.  Comm.  in  Matt.,  n.  46.) 

"  Which  has  neither  been  transmitted  by  the  apostles,  nor 
manifested  in  any  part  of  the  Scriptures.*'  (T.  iii.  Comm.  in 
Matt.,  1.  xiii.  ex.  Pamphil.  Apolog.) 

The  testimony  of  the  Fathers  of  the  fifth  century,  is  equally 
full,  to  the  same  point. 

Such  seems  to  have  been  the  faith  of  the  ancient  church  in 
the  days  of  her  mighty  struggles  to  establish  Christianity,  when 
she  had  received  the  deposit  of  faith  fresh  from  the  apostles, 


4:6  THE    LAW    OF    CHRIST. 

and  when  no  one  but  heretics,  such  as  Valentinius,  Marcian, 
and  Cerinthus,  disputed  the  authority  of  Tradition. 

§  15.   Concluding  remarks  of  this  chapter. 

Of  the  ancient  Fathers  Dr.  Spring  says  : 

"The  ancient  fathers  acknowledged  the  authority  of  the 
apostolic  traditions,  unwritten  or  written  ;  but,  as  we  shall  here- 
after show,  they  not  only  never  pretended  that  the  church  must 
blindly  receive  as  apostolical  traditions  all  that  may  be  put  upon 
them  as  such,  but  urged  the  obligation  of  bringing  them  to  the 
test  of  the  written  revelation."  (Dis.  17.) 

According  to  the  learned  Divine,  the  principle  of  acknowl- 
edging the  authority  of  the  apostolical  traditions,  both  unwrit- 
ten and  written,  was  the  faith  of  the  ancient  church ;  but  the 
church  was  careful  not  to  admit  every  thing  that  might  claim  to 
be  tradition,  but  brought  them  to  the  test  of  the  written  Word. 
That  the  church  was  careful  to  admit  only  true  traditions  seems 
clear,  and  that  the  Scriptures  were  used  as  well  as  other  proofs 
to  show  what  were  apostolical  traditions,  is  no  doubt  true.  But 
that  a  tradition  was  rejected  simply  because  it  differed  from, 
while  it  did  not  contradict  the  Scriptures,  is,  I  apprehend,  an 
error,  if  such  position  was  intended  to  be  advanced.  It  will  be 
seen  at  once,  that  the  unwritten  must  have  differed  from  the 
written  traditions — the  Scriptures ;  and,  to  test  them,  therefore, 
by  the  Scriptures,  could  only  be  done  in  so  far  as  they  were 
alleged  to  be  contradictory.  Mere  difference  may  not  constitute 
contradiction.  Every  contradiction  is  a  difference;  but  every 
difference  is  not  a  contradiction.  If  additional  facts  be  pre- 
served by  tradition,  these  may  not  contradict  the  Scriptures,  any 
more  than  the  additional  facts  stated  by  St.  Luke,  contradict 
the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew.  It  was  only  upon  the  ground  that 
these  additional  facts  were  preserved  by  tradition,  that  its  au- 
thority was  admitted  by  the  ancient  church.  There  could  have 
been  no  satisfactory  reason  but  this. 

It  was  by  Tradition  that  the  Scriptures  were  attested,  as  a 
single  extract  from  Origen  will  show  : 

"  As  I  have  learned  by  tradition  regarding  the  four  gospels, 
which  are  the  only  disputed  ones  in  the  church  of  God  which  ia 


THE    LAW    OF   CHKIST.  47 

under  heaven — that  the  first  was  written,"  <fec.  (T.  iii.  Com.  in 
Matt.,  p.  440.  Euseb.  H.,  1.  vi.,  c.  25.) 

So  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  learn,  the  Catholic  Church  has 
never  admitted,  or  contended  that  she  must  receive  as  apos- 
tolical traditions  all  that  may  be  sought  to  be  put  upon  her,  as 
such ;  but  she  has  been  exceedingly  careful  not  to  admit  any 
b  it  such  as  were  well  attested  by  the  church  in  all  ages,  and 
that  she  has  always  used  both  the  unwritten  and  written  law,  to 
amplify  and  interpret  one  another.  She  has  ever  held  it  to  be 
alike  her  duty  to  reject  spurious  traditions,  as  well  as  spurious 
Scriptures.  And  as  Blackstone  well  says,  the  common  law  of 
England  is  not  "  at  present  merely  oral,  or  communicated  from 
former  ages  to  the  present  solely  by  word  of  mouth,"  so,  the 
traditions  of  the  apostles  are  not  at  present  merely  oral,  nor 
were  they  communicated  from  former  ages  by  word  of  mouth 
only,  but  were  reduced  to  writing  soon  after  the  days  of  the 
apostles ;  and  are  found  hi  the  testimony  of  the  Fathers,  and  in 
the  decisions  of  the  church.  Thus  in  the  first  extract  regarding 
St.  Ignatius,  martyred  about  106,  we  see  he  had  reduced  a  por- 
tion of  them  to  writing,  as  stated  by  Eusebius. 

The  learned  Protestant  Bishop  Montague  says : 

"  There  are  hundreds  of  particulars  which  have  been  insti- 
tuted by  God  in  point  of  religion,  commanded  and  used  by  the 
church,  of  which  we  own  that  the  Scripture  delivers  or  teaches 
no  such  thing."  (P.  396.  Cited  by  Demetrius  A.  Galitzin,  in  "  A 
letter  to  a  Protestant  friend  on  the  holy  Scriptures,"  published 
by  F.  Lucas,  jr.,  Baltimore.) 

I  could  never  find  the  authority  in  the  New  Testament  for 
keeping  the  first,  instead  of  the  seventh  day  of  the  week  as  a 
sabbath.  The  language  of  the  Old  law  is  most  explicit  that  the 
seventh  day  shall  be  kept.  And  not  only  is  the  language  defi- 
nite and  certain,  but  the  reason  why  God  ordained  that  specified 
day  is  given  ;  i.  e.,  that  the  Creator  Himself  rested  on  the  sev* 
enth  day,  and  blessed  the  seventh  day.  (Ex.  xx.  8-11.)  To 
say,  in  the  face  of  so  clear  a  provision,  that  the  observance  of 
any  other  day  of  the  week,  is  a  compliance  with  the  law,  is  to 
indulge  a  hazardous  latitude  with  the  explicit  language  of  the 
lawgiver.  But  Tradition  informs  us  that  the  first  was  substituted 


4:8  THE   LAW    OF   CHRIST. 

for  the  seventh  day  of  the  week,  by  the  apostles,  in  honor  of  our 
Lord's  glorious  resurrection. 

It  has  been  often  objected  against  the  traditions  of  the 
church,  that  our  Lord  told  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  that  they 
had  made  void  the  law  of  God  by  their  traditions.  (Matt,  xv.) 

Our  Lord  certainly  did  condemn  certain  specified  traditions ; 
but  how  this  condemnation  of  particular  traditions  can  be  con- 
strued into  a  general  condemnation  of  all  tradition,  is  certainly 
not  quite  obvious.  If  our  Saviour  had  intended  a  general  con- 
demnation of  all  tradition  as  a  medium  of  transmission,  He 
would  not  have  used  language  specially  confined  to  a  particular 
class  of  traditions  then  in  existence.  His  language,  in  such  case, 
would  have  been  general,  so  as  to  include  the  future,  as  well  as 
the  past  and  present.  As  Christ  expressly  confined  His  con- 
demnation to  one  class  of  tradition,  by  what  rule  of  rational  con- 
struction can  we  make  that  general,  which  He  chose  only  to 
make  special  ?  To  expressly  confine  a  provision  of  law  to  speci~ 
fied  cases,  is  to  exclude  the  idea  of  generality.  When  a  law- 
giver specifies  a  single  error,  and  denounces  that,  the  denuncia- 
tion cannot  be  extended  to  other  matters  not  designated.  If 
we  take  it  to  be  true,  for  the  sake  of  the  argument  only,  that 
Christ  meant  simply  to  condemn  the  particular  traditions  al- 
luded to,  we  cannot  put  into  His  mouth  more  appropriate  words 
to  express  such  intention,  or  language  more  definite  and  certain, 
unless  we  make  Him  resort  to  useless  tautology,  a  thing  not 
usual  with  competent  legislators.  The  quotation  sustains  the 
Catholic  view,  and  is  against  the  Protestant.* 

It  would  seem  that  our  Lord  did  not  intend  to  condemn  His 
own,  and  the  subsequent  acts  of  His  apostles,  in  promulgating 
and  administering  a  traditional  system  of  law.  He  did  not  in- 

*  The  very  fact  that  our  Lord  was  careful  to  condemn  only  a  certain  class 
of  tradition,  shows  clearly  that  He  did  not  intend  to  go  beyond  those  men- 
tioned. If  He  intended  to  make  His  condemnation  general,  then  it  was  idle  to 
put  it  in  a  special  form,  and  expressly  confine  it  to  certain  specified  traditions. 
Were  a  lawyer  to  quote  a  special  statute  to  confute  a  general  principle,  he 
would  be  considered  as  establishing  the  general  principle,  and  as  confuting 
himself.  To  show  exceptions  to  a  general  rule,  only  goes  to  establish  it.  So, 
to  show  that  our  Lord  only  condemned  certain  traditions,  is  to  show  that  He 
did  not  intend  to  condemn  others  not  mentioned. 


\ 


THE   LAW    OF   CHRIST.  49 

tend  to  give  the  Jews  the  occasion  to  say,  with  truth :  "  You 
condemned  all  tradition,  and  then  enforced  your  own  system 
in  the  same  form."  To  say  that  because  there  were  some  false, 
that  there  could  be  no  true  traditions,  would  seem  about  as 
illogical  as  to  say  that  we  should  reject  all  true  history,  and  the 
true  Scriptures,  because  there  have  been  false  histories,  and  spu- 
rious Scriptures. 
6 


CHAPTER  II. 

OF    THE    VISIBLE    CHURCH    OF    CHRIST. 

§  1.   The  organization  of  the  visible  Church  must  follow  from 
the  character  of  Christ  as  a  lawgiver. 

IP  we  concede  that  Christ  was  a  lawgiver,  then  we  must  con- 
cede that  He  would  necessarily  organize  His  followers  into  a 
visible  association.  And  as  He  was  the  sole  founder  of  the  system, 
He  would  naturally  establish  a  visible  kingdom — not  a  republic. 
All  lawgivers  intend  their  codes  to  govern  associated,  not  dis- 
persed men.  And  each  code  of  law  is  intended  to  govern  one 
association  only.  When  a  just  legislator  founds  a  system,  he 
always  has  in  his  eye  the  adaptation  of  his  government  to  the 
condition  of  men  united.  For  it  is  only  in  that  state  that  men 
can  be  governed.  And  if  Christ  made  a  law  to  be  practically 
obeyed  by  men  on  earth.  He  must  have  instituted  a  government 
HERE ;  and  this  government  could  not  exist  without  a  visible 
association  of  the  parties  governed.  And  if  He  did  found  any 
system  of  government  on  earth,  any  kingdom,  of  course  it  must 
have  been  practical,  and  justly  adapted  to  the  wants  of  human 
nature,  and  possessed  in  itself  the  necessary  elements  of  success. 
Assuming  that  Christ  was  a  lawmaker,  the  organization  of  the 
visible  Church  must  logically  flow  from  that  character.  It 
would  seem  equally  clear  that  if  He  did  organize  a  visible  asso- 
ciation of  men  called  the  Church,  He  must  have  intended  that 
there  should  exist  in  this  association  perfect  unity  of  faith. 

§  2.   The  end  and  purpose  of  union  is  rightful  success. 
It  must  be  obvious  that  no  great  object  is  ever  undertaken 
without  the  union  of  numbers.     From  a  small  village  debating 


CHRIST    DID   ORGANIZE    A   VISIBLE   CHURCH.  51 

society,  through  every  grade  of  organization,  up  to  the  mighti- 
est civil  government  on  earth,  the  first  end  to  be  secured  is 
union  of  effort.  The  truth  of  this  position  is  shown  by  the  fact 
that  if  there  be  any  great  charitable,  literary,  or  other  object  to 
be  attained,  those  who  engage  in  it  at  once  unite  themselves 
into  a  visible  society,  for  the  accomplishment  of  the  end  in- 
tended. Success  must  lie  through  unity  of  design  and  unity  of 
effort. 

If  Christ  intended  the  success  of  His  system,  He  must  have 
left  efficient  means  to  attain  it.  If  men  who  pretend  to  preach 
the  same  system  of  religion  differ  widely  among  themselves  re- 
garding what  the  system  is,  it  at  once  produces  confusion  among 
all  parties,  both  the  teachers  and  the  persons  taught.  It  affords 
one  of  the  most  obvious  and  ready  arguments  against  the  truth 
of  a  system ;  an  argument  always  plied  with  great  practical  suc- 
cess. All  men  seem  to  know,  at  a  glance,  that  two  contradic- 
tory systems  cannot  both  be  true — that  truth  is  and  must  be, 
one  and  indivisible. 

But  union  is  not  only  necessary  to  success,  but  it  is  espe- 
cially necessary  to  rightful  success.  There  was  no  unholy  am- 
bition in  the  bosom  of  Christ ;  and  the  only  success  contem- 
plated by  Him  was  the  success  of  the  entire  truth.  The  success 
of  a  mutilated  or  corrupted  form  of  Christianity  was  no  part  of 
the  Divine  intention.  Christ  designed  only  the  success  of  the 
system  as  He  established  it.  And  to  secure  this  success,  con- 
tinued unity  in  the  same  faith  once  delivered,  was  indispensable. 

I  was  myself  for  many  years  a  Deist,  and  remember  the 
weight  the  argument  drawn  from  the  divisions  among  Christians 
had  with  me,  and  how  often  I  heard  it  in  the  mouths  of  all  scep- 
tics. At  that  time  I  knew  nothing  of  the  Catholic  system,  and 
nothing  of  the  grounds  upon  which  it  assumed  to  rest.  Had  I 
been  well  informed  in  regard  to  it,  I  do  not  think  I  should  ever 
have  had  much  difficulty  in  believing  the  system  of  Christianity 
to  be  true. 

The  celebrated  Volney,  in  his  "  Ruins,"  has  put  arguments  into 
the  mouths  of  the  advocates  of  different  systems  of  religion 
in  the  world,  the  Christian,  the  Mohammedan,  and  Heathen, 
each  sustaining  his  own  system,  and  attacking  all  others ;  and 
after  he  makes  them  exhaust  themselves  in  a  war  against  each 


52  CHRIST   DID    ORGANIZE   A   VISIBLE   CHURCH. 

other,  he  concludes  that  they  are  all  wrong.  And  such 
conclusions  result  very  naturally  from  man's  impatience,  and 
from  his  disposition  to  reject  whatever  is  contradictory  and  con- 
fused. 

The  differences  and  consequent  divisions  among  professed 
Christians  have  made  more  infidels  than  all  other  causes  com 
bined.  If  the  diversity  of  views  regarding  different  systems  of 
religion  found  among  mankind  have  the  practical  effect  of  re- 
tarding the  progress  of  Christianity  in  the  world,  how  much 
greater  must  be  the  effect  of  divisions  among  those  who  profess 
the  same  system !  Most  men  who  are  infidels,  neglect  or  refuse 
to  investigate.  They  satisfy  themselves  by  the  easy  and  off- 
hand reflection  that  there  must  be  something  radically  wrong 
in  Christianity  itself,  something  not  to  be  understood,  or  else  the 
professors  of  the  system  would  agree  as  to  what  it  is.  Accord- 
ing to  the  impressions  they  take  up,  they  must  first  go  through 
the  arduous  labor  of  an  investigation  into  the  truth  of  the  sys- 
tem, and  after  they  have  arrived  at  that  point,  they  must  then 
examine  the  still  more  complex  question  as  to  which  of  the  five 
hundred  divisions  in  Christendom  is  right. 

The  Mohammedan  says  to  the  Christian :  "  First  agree 
among  yourselves  as  to  what  your  religion  is,  and  when  you 
have  done  that,  then  come  to  me.  If  you,  who  have  studied 
this  matter  all  your  lives,  do  not  understand  it,  how  can  you  ex- 
pect me  to  do  so  ?  You  Christians  preach  so  many  different 
doctrines,  and  are  split  up  and  divided  into  so  many  parties,  that 
you  do  not  know  yourselves  what  is  right,  and  you  are  not, 
therefore,  capable  of  instructing  me.  You  had  better  confine 
your  arguments  to  yourselves,  until  you  have  come  to  some  com- 
mon conclusions  as  to  what  you  shall  teach  others." 

The  force  of  this  reasoning  is  very  readily  apprehended  by 
even  ordinary  minds,  and  makes  a  deep  impression  upon  those 
persons  who  are  naturally  inclined  to  doubt.  We  unhesitating- 
ly, and  at  once,  draw  the  easy  and  ready  conclusion  that  there 
must  be  some  great  defect  in  a  system  that  has  provided  no 
practical  means  of  securing  unity  of  faith,  and  about  which  there 
exists  so  wide  a  difference  of  opinion  among  those  who  profeM 
both  to  believe  and  to  understand  it. 


CHRIST   DID   ORGANIZE   A   VISIBLE   CHURCH.  53 

§  3.   There  is  much  more  infidelity  in  the  world  than  most  teach- 
ers of  Christianity  believe. 

Teachers  of  Christianity  are  excluded,  by  their  position,  from 
the  same  opportunities  to  learn  the  sentiments  of  the  great  mass 
of  men,  that  are  enjoyed  by  men  of  other  professions,  and  who 
are  thus  brought  more  in  contact  with  the  outside  world.  Many 
men  who  will  very  readily  admit  to  a  known  teacher  of  religion 
that  they  believe  the  system,  for  the  purpose  of  avoiding  an  ar- 
gument, because  they  care  nothing  about  the  system  itself,  are 
yet  in  a  state  either  of  great  doubt  or  confirmed  infidelity.  You 
will  scarcely  ever  hear  a  public  speaker  on  the  stump  or  at  the 
bar  say  any  thing  against  Christianity,  and  most  of  them  will 
pronounce  eloquent  eulogies  upon  it,  when,  in  truth  and  in  fact, 
a  very  large  majority  of  them  are  sceptical  to  the  last  degree. 
Most  of  the  editors  of  our  daily  and  weekly  political  and  literary 
papers  write  beautiful  articles  in  praise  of  Christianity,  while 
very  few  of  them  believe  in  it  with  any  confiding  faith. 

As  already  stated,  I  was  for  many  years  a  Deist,  and  being 
sincere  in  my  views,  I  was  ready  to  admit  them  upon  proper 
occasions.  In  my  conversations  with  those  who  were  not  pro- 
fessors of  religion,  and  while  giving  my  reasons  against  it,  I  could 
not  but  observe  how  readily  they  were  received  by  nearly  all 
those  who  heard  me.  I  found  individuals,  not  members  of  any 
church,  who  candidly  admitted  their  belief  in  the  truth  of  Chris- 
tianity ;  but  these  were  few,  and  constituted  exceptions  only  to 
the  general  rule.  It  would  seem  utterly  inconsistent  for  a  man 
to  believe  in  Christianity,  and  yet  not  embrace  it.  His  faith 
must  evidently  be  very  weak.  There  are  not  many  persons, 
upon  a  subject  of  such  unspeakable  importance,  that  will  act  a 
part  so  ruinous  to  themselves.  Whenever  any  man  becomes 
sincerely  convinced  of  the  truth  of  a  religious  system,  if  he  is 
not  a  direct  and  positive  enemy  of  himself,  he  will  be  very  apt 
to  act,  and  put  his  convictions  in  practice. 

And  this  infidelity,  as  a  general  thing,  exists  without  any 
systematic  effort  on  the  part  of  infidels  to  propagate  their  views, 
for  they  have  very  few  public  speakers  wrho  employ  their  time 
for  that  purpose,  and  their  publications  do  not  extend  half  so  far 
as  their  opinions.  You  may  go  into  many  houses,  where  you 


54:  CHRIST   DID    ORGANIZE    A    VISIBLE    CHURCH. 

will  find  the  Bible,  and  no  infidel  works  ;  and  yet  most  of  the 
family  will  be  infidels  or  sceptics,  and  show  it  most  conclusively 
by  their  acts.  I  was  a  Deist  before  I  read  a  work  upon  the  sub- 
ject ;  and  this  extended  diffusion  throughout  society  of  unbe- 
lief is  mainly  owing  to  the  divisions  and  disputes  among  Chris- 
tians. It  is  the  ready  and  forcible  argument  drawn  from  this 
most  deplorable  and  melancholy  state  of  things  that  has  pro- 
duced this  result ;  and  I  can  safely  appeal  to  every  intelligent 
man,  at  all  conversant  with  the  feelings  and  opinions  of  men,  as 
to  the  correctness  of  this  position. 

I  speak  of  the  practical  effect  of  these  divisions,  and  not  of 
the  effect  they  should  have,  in  right  reason,  upon  the  minds  of 
men.  But  the  difficulty  lies  here.  Most  men  are  prone,  from 
motives  of  convenience,  or  feelings  of  indolence,  or  present  in- 
terest, to  judge  of  things  pertaining  to  the  future  by  some  sum- 
mary method.  They  like  to  judge  of  such  things  in  one  mass, 
and  dispose  of  them  in  the  same  way.  You  must  first  almost 
convince  them  of  the  truth  of  a  system,  before  you  can  excite 
them  to  investigation. 

Mr.  Campbell,  in  his  debate  with  Mr.  Rice,  very  truly  says  : 

"  The  land  is  full  of  infidelity.    -  *      *      *      *     The  reason 

is,  the  gospel  is  blasphemed  by  the  discords,  the  variances, 

the  hatred,  and  strife  engendered  by  your  partyism."     (Debate, 

905.) 

§  4.  Of  the  Scriptural  proof  s  that  Christ  did  organize  such  an 
institution,  and  contemplate  such  unity. 

It  would  seem,  from  a  just  and  candid  consideration  of  the 
reasons  stated,  that  Christ  must  have  intended  a  visible  organi- 
zation of  His  followers ;  and  that  if  such  organization  was  in- 
tended, that  continued  unity  in  it  must  also  have  been  designed 
by  Him.  The  last  necessarily  results  from  the  former.  If  the 
organization  was  designed  to  exist  at  all,  and  was  necessary,  in 
the  nature  of  the  system  and  of  the  beings  it  was  intended  to 
govern,  it  is  clear  that  it  was  designed  to  continue  so  long  as 
the  system  itself  should  endure. 

If  we  pass  from  this  train  of  reasoning  to  the  positive  testi- 
mony of  Scripture,  we  shall  find  the  position  most  clearly  sus- 
tained. Throughout  the  New  Testament,  when  the  general 


CHRIST    DID    ORGANIZE    A    VISIBLE    CHURCH.  55 

terms  "  the  Church  "  are  used,  without  being  qualified  by  other 
words,  or  without  being  used  in  such  a  connection  as  to  show 
a  limited  meaning,  it  is  applied  to  the  one  visible,  universal 
church. 

In  St.  Matthew's  Gospel  Christ  says  :  "  tell  the  church  " — 
"  if  he  will  not  hear  the  church  " — "  upon  this  rock  I  will  build 
my  church."  In  the  third  chapter  of  St.  Paul's  first  epistle  to 
Timothy,  the  church  he  speaks  of  is  plainly  the  visible  church. 
In  the  second  chapter  of  Isaiah,  speaking  of  the  future  church, 
we  find  the  prophet  using  these  words  : 

"  And  it  shall  come  to  pass  in  the  last  days,  that  the  moun- 
tain of  the  Lord's  house  shall  be  established  in  the  top  of  the 
mountains,  and  shall  be  exalted  above  the  hills,  and  all  nations 
shall  flow  into  it.  And  many  people  shall  go  and  say,  Come  ye, 
and  let  us  go  up  to  the  mountain  of  the  Lord,  to  the  house  of 
the  God  of  Jacob ;  and  he  will  teach  us  of  his  ways,  and  wo 
shall  walk  in  his  paths,  for  out  of  Zion  shall  go  forth  the  law,  and 
the  word  of  the  Lord  from  Jerusalem." 

Here  the  church  is  most  beautifully  compared  to  a  house  on 
the  top  of,  the  mountains,  exalted  above  the  hills.  There  is 
surely  nothing  contemplated  in  this  sublime  passage  but  a  visi- 
ble church,  in  which  "  the  Lord  will  teach  us  of  his  ways,"  and 
in  which  "  we  will  walk  in  his  paths."  Connect  this  with  the 
fourteenth  verse  of  the  fifth  chapter  of  Matthew,  where  Christ 
says  to  his  apostles  :  "  Ye  are  the  light  of  the  world.  A  city 
set  on  a  hill  cannot  be  hid." 

That  perfect  unity  in  this  visible  organization  was  intended 
by  Christ,  not  only  follows  from  the  reasons  given,  but  it  is 
shown  by  the  written  Word,  by  the  testimony  of  the  church 
in  all  ages,  and  by  the  admissions  of  Protestant  writers  them- 
selves. 

"  And  other  sheep  I  have,  which  are  not  of  this  fold ;  them 
also  I  must  bring,  and  they  shall  hear  my  voice,  and  there  shall 
be  one  fold,  and  one  shepherd."  (Johnx.  16.) 

"  There  is  one  body  and  one  spirit,  even  as  ye  are  called  in 
one  hope  of  your  calling  ;  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism." 
(Eph.  iv.  4,  5.) 

"  And  he  is  the  head  of  the  body,  the  church."  (Colos.  i, 
18.) 


56  CHRI6T    DID    ORGANIZE    A    VISIBLE    CHURCH. 

"  The  house  of  God,  which  is  the  church  of  the  living  God.M 
(1  Tim.  iii.  15.) 

No  comments  could  add  any  thing  to  the  force  of  the  extract 
from  St.  John :  "  There  shall  be  one  fold,  and  one  shepherd." 
And  St.  Paul  says :  "  There  is  one  body,  one  spirit,  one  hope, 
one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism."  All  these  are  closely  connect- 
ed in  the  same  sentence,  and  have  the  same  power :  and  as  there 
can  be  no  divisions  in  the  "  one  spirit,  one  hope,  one  Lord,  one 
faith,  one  baptism,"  neither  can  there  be  in  the  "  one  body," 
(the  church,)  but  there  must  be  the  most  perfect  unity  in  all, 
or  in  none.  Again,  Christ  is  said  to  be  "  the  head  of  the  body, 
the  church,"  and  if  the  head  be  not  divided,  can  the  body  be  ? 
And  Christ  Himself  laid  down  the  general  principle,  that  a 
"  kingdom  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand  ;"  and  the  church 
of  Christ  is  His  kingdom.  (Dan.  ii.  44  ;  Luke  i.  33.)  Again, 
could  the  church  be  the  "  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth,"  if  in 
her  there  was  not  perfect  union  ?  And  the  "  house"  in  which 
Timothy  was  instructed  to  "  behave"  himself,  must  have  been 
one  thing,  and  but  one.  There  is  nothing  like  the  idea  of  divi- 
sion or  disunion  conveyed  in  any  of  these  quotations,  nor  in  the 
whole  New  Testament.  The  whole  spirit  of  the  system  con- 
templates union.  The  whole  drift  of  the  New  Testament  seems 
to  contemplate  nothing  less. 

And  for  what  purpose  would  disunion  be  desirable  ?  What 
good,  in  proportion  to  the  evil,  could  be  accomplished  by  it  ? 
It  is  true,  I  have  sometimes  heard  it  suggested  in  private  argu- 
ment, that  the  divisions  in  Christendom  were  productive  of 
good  in  this  way.  They  created  a  sort  of  rivalship  among  the 
different  parties,  that  naturally  led  to  more  industry,  more  re- 
search, and  more  activity,  and  consequently  more  was  done. 
But  such  a  state  of  things  seems  never  to  have  been  contem- 
plated by  the  system.  It  was  expected  that  Christians  would 
do  their  duty  from  love  to  the  cause,  without  being  driven  to 
it  by  party  bitterness.  The  gentle  and  united  system  of  Chris- 
tianity never  supposed  that  its  followers  would  be  guilty  of  the 
madness  of  the  Jews,  when  besieged  in  Jerusalem  by  Titus, 
where  they  wasted  their  strength  in  destroying  each  other,  in- 
stead of  uniting  against  the  common  foe.  Surely  no  founder 
of  any  government  intended  to  so  frame  it  as  to  produce  divi- 


CHRIST   DID   ORGANIZE    A    VISIBLE   CHURCH.  57 

sions ;  on  the  contrary,  it  is  the  very  evil  that  all  law  and  all 
government  were  intended  to  prevent. 

It  may  be  true,  to  some  extent,  that  divisions,  for  a  time, 
may  produce  more  activity  and  more  exertion.  But  it  is  more 
true,  that  they  produce  more  prejudice,  more  bitterness,  and 
more  hatred ;  and  the  more  of  these  the  worse  for  the  common 
cause,  for  the  reason  that  this  activity  and  this  exertion  are 
turned,  not  so  much  against  the  .common  adversary  as  against 
each  other.  Mutiny  in  an  army  does  not  conquer  the  enemy. 

§  5.  Extracts  from  Protestant  writers. 

I  will  now  make  a  few  quotations  from  Protestant  writers, 
to  show  the  importance  they  attach  to  the  union  of  the  visible 
church. 

"  On  no  principle,"  says  Dr.  Spring,  "  can  the  Protestant 
Reformation  be  vindicated,  or  the  reformers  be  held  guiltless 
of  the  most  uncalled-for  schism  that  ever  rent  asunder  the  vis- 
ible church,  if  it  be  of  minor  consequence  whether  the  oracles 
>f  God,  or  the  decisions  of  Rome,  be  the  rule  of  faith."* 

"  I  agree  with  my  fiiend  Mr.  C.,"  says  Mr.  Rice,  "  that  the 
union  of  all  the  disciples  of  Christ  is  an  object  greatly  to  be  de- 
sired. I  go  for  Christian  union  upon  Scriptural  principles  as 
zealously  as  he,  and  so  do  evangelical  denominations  generally, 
so  far  as  I  know.  We  differ  not  concerning  the  importance  of 
the  object,  but  concerning  the  proper  method  of  securing  it." 

*  "  Dissertation  on  the  Rule  of  Faith,"  a  lecture  delivered  in  Cincinnati 
and  published  in  1844. 

In  this  treatise,  the  learned  Divine  has  made  many  grievous  and  bitter 
charges  against  the  Catholic  Church.  It  is  not  written  in  that  spirit  of  char- 
ity that  should  be  found  in  every  Christian  writer.  It  is  true,  that  while  the 
course  pursued  by  Dr.  Spring  would  be  most  satisfactory  to  the  prejudiced 
reader,  it  has  involved  him  in  many  contradictions.  It  also  contains  many 
misrepresentations  of  the  Catholic  faith.  But  while  I  am  compelled  to  give 
this  as  my  view  of  the  general  character  of  the  Lecture,  I  must  cheerfully  ad- 
mit that  there  are  many  instances  of  candor  displayed  in  different  portions  of 
it.  In  the  quotation  above,  there  is  a  very  incorrect  statement  of  the  issue 
between  the  two  parties.  The  Protestant  rule  of  Faith  he  makes  the  "  Oracles 
of  God,"  and  the  Catholic  "  the  decisions  "  of  the  Church.  In  the  Protestant, 
he  leaves  out  the  construction  of  the  Written  Word,  and  in  the  Catholic  he 
leaves  out  the  law  itself.  But  in  justice  to  Dr.  Spring,  I  cheerfully  admit  that 
in  other  places  he  has  explained  the  Catholic  rule  more  correctly. 
7 


58  CHRIST    DID    ORGANIZE    A    VISIBLE    CHURCH. 

"  Concerning  CHRISTIAN  UNION,  let  me  repeat,  we  are  all 
most  decidedly  in  favor  of  it.  What  is  the  union  of  which  the 
apostle  speaks  ?  It  is  the  unity  of  the  faith,  and  of  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  Son  of  God."  (Campbell  and  Rice's  Debate, 
770,  780.) 

The  writings  of  Mr.  Campbell  abound  with  many  unan- 
swerable arguments  for  union.  In  his  debate  with  Mr.  Rice, 
there  are  many  fine  bursts  of  eloquence  upon  this  theme,  only  a 
few  of  which  can  be  inserted  here. 

"  In  this  sectarian  and  schismatic  age,"  says  Mr.  Campbell, 
"  we  have  assembled  for  the  purpose  of  discovering,  if  possible, 
the  roots  of  discord  and  the  seeds  of  schism,  which  have  unhap- 
pily alienated  and  estranged  us  from  each  other,  that  we  may, 
peradventure,  find  some  remedy  for  those  wounds  and  griev- 
ances which  have  so  disgraced  our  holy  faith,  marred  its  beauty, 
and  impeded  its  progress  in  the  world." 

"  But,  my  fellow-citizens,  there  is  one  point  that  cannot  be 
too  deeply  impressed  upon  your  minds — that  the  union  of  Chris- 
tians is  essential  to  the  conversion  of  the  world,  both  at  home 
and  abroad." 

"  What  is  the  state  of  the  case  ?  We  all  see  that  Christen- 
dom is  at  present  in  a  distracted,  agitated,  disturbed  condition, 
cut  up  or  frittered  down  into  sects  and  parties  innumerable, 
wholly  unwarranted  by  right  reason,  pure  religion,  the  Bible, — 
the  God  of  the  Bible.  Before  the  high,  and  holy,  and  puissant 
intelligences  of  earth  and  heaven,  this  state  of  things  is  most 
intolerable."  (Id.  230,  783,  904.) 

And  Mr.  Rice  may  well  say  that  "  the  union  of  which  the 
apostle  speaks,  is  the  unity  of  the  faith,  and  of  the  knowledge 
of  the  Son  of  God."  For  the  unity  of  the  faith,  and  of  the 
knowledge  of  the  Son  of  God,  is  the  unity  contemplated  by  the 
system.  And  in  reference  to  these  distractions  in  Christendom, 
Mr.  Campbell's  language  is  not  less  eloquent  than  true  :  "  J9e- 
fore  the  high,  and  holy,  and  puissant  intelligences  of  earth 
and  heaven,  this  state  of  things  is  most  intolerable." 

§  6.  Extract  from  a  Catholic  writer. 

I  shall  close  this  chapter  with  the  following  beautiful  ex- 
tract from  an  eminent  living  Catholic  writer,  as  it  expresses  my 


CHRIST   DID    ORGANIZE    A    VISIBLE   CHURCH.  59 

own  views  in  language  far  more  beautiful  and  appropriate  than 
any  I  could  select  myself: 

"  Nothing  can  be  more  beautiful  in  the  conception  of  a 
Christian  Church,  than  a  perfect  unity  of  belief.  Such  an  idea 
is  beautiful  to  the  imagination,  because  it  is  the  consecration  of 
the  first  and  most  essential  principles,  whereon  society  is  based. 
For  the  social  union  tends  to  merge  the  feelings  of  each  indi- 
vidual in  the  general  mass,  and  leads  him  to  embrace  mankind 
rather  than  individual  men.  And  in  like  manner  does  the  prin- 
ciple of  religious  unity  tend  to  excite  your  love  towards  them, 
no  longer  as  brothers  in  the  flesh,  but  as  connected  with  you 
by  a  holier  and  diviner  bond,  and  assists  towards  inspiring  every 
member  of  the  community  with  all  that  can  be  reciprocally  felt, 
in  the  nearest  ties  and  connections  of  our  nature.  And  if  the 
very  idea  of  a  republic,  or  government,  in  which  men  were 
united  by  such  real  or  ideal  bonds,  as  that  they  fought  side  by 
side,  or  contributed  towards  the  common  weal,  did  seem  to 
them  of  old  so  beautiful  and  heavenly,  that  the  very  conception 
of  such  a  state,  embodied  under  outward  symbols,  should  have 
been  deified  and  worshipped,  what  shall  we  say  of  that  sacred 
union  which  holds  men  together,  not  merely  as  constituents  of 
a  community,  but  as  members  of  one  mystical  body ;  not  ce- 
mented together  by  the  sense  of  mutual  want,  or  strung  one 
unto  the  other  by  the  ties  of  the  flesh,  or  the  interests  of  the 
world,  but  firmly  united  by  the  headship  of  One,  in  whom*  the 
sublimest  thought  reposes,  as  in  its  proper  sphere,  and  inly 
communicating  through  the  circulation  of  vital  influences,  pass- 
ing from  one  unto  the  other ;  not  contributing  to  the  common 
stock  the  gifts  or  qualities  of  earth,  but  the  fairest  virtues,  the 
most  precious  ornaments  of  our  nature  ;  not  directed  in  their 
views  towards  a  wordly  aggrandizement  or  a  passing  glory,  nor 
linked  in  battle-field  by  a  bond  of  hatred  against  a  human  foe, 
but  looking  upwards  for  their  trophies  and  rewards  to  tlm 
peaceful  smile  of  heaven,  after  they  shall  have  contended  to- 
gether in  the  gentle  strife  of  mutual  and  universal  love. 

"  Then  add  the  reflection,  how  this  influence  stretches  beyond 
the  reach  of  any  other  known  sentiment  among  mankind ;  for, 
outstripping  all  the  motives  of  sympathy  among  men  of  different 
countries,  it  flies  over  mountains,  and  seas,  and  oceans,  and  nts 


60  CHRIST   DID    ORGANIZE    A    VISIBLE   CHURCH. 

into  the  mouths  of  nations  the  most  remote,  and  the  most  disarm 
ilar,  one  canticle  of  praise,  and  into  their  minds  one  symbol  of 
belief,  and  into  their  hearts  one  sentiment  of  charity.  And, 
thus  professing  alike,  they  kneel  in  countless  multitudes  before 
one  altar,  and  from  the  soul  of  each  proceeds  the  golden  chain 
which  joins  them  unto  it,  which  God  joins  unto  the  rest,  which 
He  holdeth  in  His  hand,  for  in  Him  is  the  centre  towards  which 
the  faith  of  all  converges,  and  in  His  truth  it  is  blended  into  uni- 
formity and  oneness  of  thought.  Surely  this  is  the  idea  which  you 
would  wish  to  conceive,  of  the  efficacy  and  of  the  effects  of  that 
rule,  which  has  been  given  by  God,  to  produce  unity  of  belief. 

"But  then  also  is  this  unity  of  faith  subservient  to  another 
great  end,  to  the  evidence  of  our  blessed  Saviour's  true  religion, 
For  He  was  pleased  to  declare  that  the  unity  observed  among 
His  followers  should  be  among  the  strongest  evidences  of  His 
heavenly  mission.  'And  not  for  them  only,'  He  exclaimed, 
'  do  I  pray,  but  for  them  also,  who,  through  their  word,  shall 
believe  in  me  ;  that  they  all  may  be  one,  as  the  Father  in  me, 
and  I  in  thee,  that  they  also  may  be  one  in  us^  that  the  world 
may  believe  that  thou  hast  sent  me.1  And  that  this  unity  is  not 
merely  of  the  heart,  through  love,  but  also  of  the  mind,  in  faith, 
His  blessed  apostle  hath  abundantly  declared.  For,  according 
to  him,  if  we  wish  to  walk  worthy  of  the  vocation  wherein  we 
have  been  called,  it  must  be  not  only  by  '  humility,  and  mildness, 
and  patience,  supporting  one  another  in  charity,'  but  we  must 
be  '  careful  to  keep  the  unity  of  the  Spirit,  in  the  bond  of 
peace,'  so  as  to  be  '  one  body '  as  well  as  4  one  spirit,'  and  to 
have  '  one  faith '  as  much  as  '  one  Lord  and  one  baptism.' 

"  Not  surely  that  charity,  the  beautiful  and  the  perfect,  steps 
not  beyond  the  circumscribing  line  of  religious  unity,  or  that 
her  genial  influences,  like  a  flower's  sweet  odor,  spread  not 
abroad  beyond  the  plant  which  first  produces  it ;  but  universal 
as  must  be  our  love  of  men,  this  will  be  ever  its  noblest  exercise, 
to  wish  and  to  strive  that  all  be  brought  to  that  closer  union 
and  unity  which  is  in  and  through  faith."  (Dr.  Wiseman,  Moor- 
field  Lectures,  77.) 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE  GOVERNING  POWER  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

§  1.  That  a  visible  association  of  men  cannot  continue  to  exist 
without  government. 

As  Christ  did  organize  His  followers  into  a  visible  body  of 
men,  upon  certain  joint  terms  common  to  the  association,  and 
with  the  intent  to  accomplish  a  joint  purpose,  it  would  seem  to 
follow  that  some  sort  of  government  must  have  been  instituted 
to  keep  the  organization  together.  It  may  be  safely  assumed 
as  a  correct  principle,  that  any  and  all  kinds  of  organizations 
among  men  must  come  together  for  some  common  end,  upon 
some  terms  /  and  that  there  must,  of  necessity,  be  some  power 
in  the  association,  placed  somewhere,  to  settle  disputes  and  ques- 
tions respecting  these  terms.  In  other  words,  there  must  be 
government  in  every  association  of  men,  to  which  a  law  is  given. 
And  the  learned  commentator  on  the  laws  of  England  well  re- 
marks : 

"  For  when  civil  society  is  once  formed,  government  at  the 
same  time  results  of  course,  as  necessary  to  preserve  and  keep 
that  society  in  order."  (1  Com.,  48.) 

And  this  same  necessity  exists  in  all  associations,  and  must, 
therefore,  exist  in  the  Church  of  Christ,  as  well  as  in  all  other 
collective  bodies  of  men.  It  is  a  necessity  inherent  in  all  organ- 
izations, in  every  society. 

And  this  invincible  necessity  results  from  the  nature  of  man, 
as  an  inferior  being.  Since  it  is  the  right  and  duty  of  the  supe- 
rior to  govern  the  inferior,  and  the  correlative  duty  of  the  infe- 
rior to  obey,  that  each  may  be  kept  in  bis  proper  sphere,  and 
that  order  may  exist,  it  follows  that  such  government  ought  to 


62         THE  GOVERNING  POWER  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

possess  the  requisite  powers  to  accomplish  these  ends.  Ordei 
must  exist  in  the  system  of  Infinite  Wisdom,  and  in  every 
thing  proposed  by  Him  to  us.  If,  then,  Christ  formed  a  visible 
church,  He  must  have  given  it  the  principles  essential  to  its  con- 
tinued existence.  We  cannot,  upon  principles  of  reason  or  ex- 
perience, conceive  of  a  visible  Church  without  government. 

§  2.  Christ  must  have  placed  the  governing  power  somewhere  in 
the  Church. 

If,  then,  Christ  instituted  any  government  in  His  church, 
He  must  have  placed  the  governing  power  somewhere ;  either 
in  the  hands  of  a  certain  order  of  men,  or  in  the  hands  of  one 
man,  or  in  the  church  at  large. 

It  is  a  fundamental  principle,  that  whatever  power  has  the 
right  to  found  a  government  at  all,  has  the  right  to  say  in  whose 
hands  the  governing  power  shall  be  placed.  Civil  governments 
are  constituted  by  men,  who,  in  the  beautiful  language  of  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  are  all  "  created  equal,"  and  the 
just  powers  of  civil  government  are  immediately  derived  from 
the  "  consent  of  the  governed,"  though  mediately  from  God. 

The  people  of  the  United  States  had  the  political  right,  in 
forming  their  Constitution,  to  frame  their  government  in  any 
shape  they  pleased ;  and  they  could  have  united,  as  they  sepa- 
rated, the  legislative,  executive,  and  judicial  powers.  But  with 
reference  to  the  Christian  government,  it  may  be  said,  that 
while  it  is  derived,  not  from  the  consent  of  the  parties  to  be 
governed,  but  from  Christ  alone,  it  still  possesses  certain  great, 
leading,  and  essential  features,  common  to  every  system  of  law, 
intended  for,  and  adapted  to,  the  government  of  mere  men. 

When  a  mere  fallible  power  founds  a  government,  it  would 
be  very  unwise  to  attempt  to  frame  a  complete  and  full  system 
of  laws  in  advance,  and  thus  to  leave  out  the  legislative  power; 
for  the  plain  and  simple  reason,  that  the  founder  of  the  govern- 
ment could  not  foresee  all  the  circumstances  that  might  exist  in 
the  future,  requiring  an  enlargement  or  modification  of  his  code. 
Hence  the  fundamental  or  constitutional  provisions  of  civil  gov- 
ernments are,  from  their  nature,  confined  to  the  more  general 
principles  of  the  system.  But  it  is  rational  to  suppose  that  an 
Infallible  Legislator  should,  at  some  period,  form  a  full  and 


THE  GOVERNING  POWER  OF  THE  CHURCH.        63 

Complete  system  of  laws,  to  operate  through  all  coming  time. 
Now  it  would  seem  that  Christ  did  form  a  complete  code  of 
law  at  the  beginning  of  the  new  dispensation,  embracing  all  the 
necessarily  permanent  portions  of  the  system,  and  leaving  no 
legislative  power  in  the  Church,  except  as  to  matters  of  disci- 
pline, in  reference  to  which  laws  could  not  have  been  well  made 
at  the  beginning,  since  changing  circumstances  might  require  a 
change  in  these  mere  disciplinary  regulations. 

But  the  other  indispensable  powers  of  government — the  ex- 
ecutive and  judicial — could  not,  in  the  very  nature  and  reason 
of  the  powers  themselves,  have  been  exercised  in  advance. 
Laws  are  rightfully  prescribed  (which  means  both  to  make  and 
publish)  in  advance  of  the  commission  of  crimes ;  commands 
must  be  given  before  they  can  be  obeyed  or  violated.  But 
there  must  be  a  violation  of  law,  before  the  judicial  power  is 
required  to  act ;  and  this  power  must  be  exercised  as  often  as 
cases  may  require,  and  must,  therefore,  continue  in  operation, 
so  lony  as  the  Church  itself  shall  exist  in  the  world.  The  same 
may  >>e  said  of  the  executive  power.  The  occasion  must  arise 
before  it  is  required  to  be  used. 

If  these  views  be  correct,  it  follows  that  one  of  two  things 
must  be  true ;  either  that  Christ  visibly  presides  on  earth  to 
exercise  the  judicial  and  executive  powers  of  the  Church,  or  He 
has  delegated  these  necessary  powers  to  others,  to  be  exercised 
by  them  as  His  agents  or  officers.  Again  it  follows  that  if  Christ 
delegated  this  authority  to  others,  He  must  have  confided  it  to 
one  man,  to  an  order  of  men,  or  to  the  whole  church  collec- 
tively. In  the  latter  case,  each  member  of  the  church  would 
have  equal  power,  as  a  part  of  the  whole. 

A  Democracy  is  a  government  in  which  the  governing  power 
is  placed  in  the  people ;  and  a  pure  Democracy,  is  where  the 
people  meet  themselves  in  council,  and  make  the  laws.  A 
representative  Democracy,  is  where  the  people  make  and  ad- 
minister the  laws  through  their  agents.  Now  the  Christian 
government  is  not  a  Democracy  of  either  kind.  It  does  not  de- 
rive its  just  powers  from  the  consent  of  the  governed,  nor  is  it 
in  any  manner  founded  by  them.  It  is  called  a  "  Kingdom," 
not  a  Democracy.  Christ  was  the  sole  founder  of  the  system, 


64:        THE  GOVERNING  POWER  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

and  had  the  right  to  institute  it  in  such  form  as  seemed  to  Him 
best. 

Now,  as  the  church  was  intended  for  one  united  body,  to 
extend  undivided  over  the  whole  earth,  and  to  exist  for  all 
coming  time,  the  idea  of  placing  the  governing  power  in  the 
hands  of  all  the  members,  would  seem  inconsistent  with  the 
principles  of  government.  That  a  lawgiver,  supreme  in  virtue 
of  His  own  nature,  should  promulgate  a  positive  and  fixed  law 
for  the  government  of  a  certain  association  of  men,  and  at  the 
same  time  confide  the  governing  power  to  all  the  members, 
would  seem  evidently  inconsistent  with  His  rights  as  the  founder 
of  the  institution,  and  incompatible  with  the  end  intended. 

We  are,  then,  thrown  upon  the  other  two  positions,  that 
Christ  either  delegated  the  governing  power  in  the  church  to 
one  man,  or  to  an  order  of  men.  It  could  not,  I  think,  be  sup- 
posed that  Christ  would  create  but  one  office  in  His  church,  as 
one  office  would  be  clearly  insufficient  for  the  duties  to  be  per- 
formed. It  would,  therefore,  seem  far  more  reasonable  that 
our  Lord  would  create  several  offices,  in  due  subordination  to 
each  other,  and  confide  the  government  of  His  church  to  them. 

It  may  be  proper  to  remark,  that  the  officers  of  any  govern- 
ment among  men,  only  exercise  delegated  authority.  The  proper 
and  only  source  from  which  this  power  flows,  is  the  rightful 
founder  of  the  government.  The  officer  acts,  not  for  himself, 
but  he  represents  the  sovereign  power  of  the  government,  what- 
ever that  may  be.  If  the  people  institute  a  civil  government, 
then,  according  to  the  theory  of  that  government,  the  sovereign 
power  resides  in  them,  in  their  collective  capacity.  And  for  the 
same  reason,  if  Christ  instituted  any  government  among  men, 
the  sovereignty  of  the  institution  resides  in  Him,  and  every 
officer  of  such  government  must  represent  Him  and  Him  only. 
It  would,  therefore,  seem  to  follow,  that,  in  delegating  the  neces- 
sary powers  to  govern  the  church,  it  would  be  very  unphilo- 
sophical  to  suppose  that  Christ  would  confide  these  powers  to 
each  and  every  member  of  the  association — the  very  parties,  and 
the  only  parties,  to  *be  governed. 

It  then  seems  to  me  clear,  that  as  Christ  was  a  lawgiver,  He 
must  have  organized  the  church — that  when  organized,  govern- 
ment in  the  church  became  inevitable — that  this  government , 


THE  GOVERNING  POWER  OF  THE  CHUKCH.        65 

to  be  government  at  all,  must  be  supreme,  and  have  jurisdiction 
over  all  questions  arising  under  the  law — and  that  as  Christ 
does  not  visibly  exercise  these  powers  on  earth,  He  must,  of 
necessity,  have  delegated  them  to  others,  who  act  as  His  agents, 

§  3.  That  succession  must  exist  of  necessity. 

If  the  church  was  intended  by  Christ  to  exist  for  a  greater 
period  of  time  than  the  lives  of  those  to  whom  the  power  to 
govern  the  church  was  originally  given,  there  must  be  a  suc- 
cession of  officers,  or  there  must  be  an  end  of  the  institution. 
In  other  words,  if  certain  OFFICES,  having  attached  to  them 
certain  powers,  were  created  by  Christ,  in  the  Church,  and  cer- 
tain persons  placed  therein,  and  these  offices  were  intended  to 
continue,  so  long  as  the  Church  itself  should  exist,  it  is  plain 
that  succession  must  follow.  It  is  so  in  all  governments.  The 
officers  die — while  the  offices  live  on.  Government  must  be 
based  upon  some  practical  principles. 

A  civil  government  most  usually  exists  for  several  centuries, 
and  the  Christian  government  is  intended  to  continue  to  the 
end  of  time.  If  certain  permanent  offices  are  necessary  to  the 
existence  of  the  church,  then  when  one  incumbent  dies,  another 
must  come  to  fill  the  position,  and  this  constitutes  succession. 
So  long  as  the  officer  must  die,  and  the  office  must  exist,  so 
long  the  principle  of  succession  must  be  acted  upon.  There  is 
no  other  mode  of  continuing  the  institution.  This  is  the  case 
in  all  political  governments,  and  must  be  so  in  all  governments 
intended  for  men,  where  the  offices  are  to  be  filled  by  men. 

Whatever  government  Christ  did  adopt  for  His  church, 
must  have  been  consistent  with  human  nature.  He  could  not 
be  supposed  to  form  a  government  for  men,  that  would  only 
answer  for  some  other  race  of  beings.  Any  government  insti- 
tuted by  Christ  must  possess  all  the  elements  of  a  perfect  sys- 
tem, one  part  having  a  due  dependence  upon  another,  so  as  to 
constitute  a  fitness  and  harmony  in  all  its  parts,  that  the  com- 
bined whole  may  be  practical,  simple,  and  efficient. 

§  4.  The  true  office  of  reason. 

It  must  be  conceded,  that  while  Christ  never  intended  to 
suppress  reason,  the  noblest  attribute  of  man,  He  did  intend  to 


66        THE  GOVERNING  POWER  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

confine  it  within  its  legitimate  limits,  and  to  its  appropriate  ob- 
jects. Like  every  other  attribute  belonging  to  inferior  beings, 
it  must  be  subject  to  rules  and  restrictions.  It  could  not,  there- 
fore, be  a  true  guide  in  reference  to  every  thing,  and  under  all 
circumstances.  But,  while  it  is  limited  and  restrained,  it  must 
be  competent  within  those  limits.  And  though  all  truth  must 
be  strictly  consistent  and  reasonable  in  itself,  portions  of  it  must, 
in  the  nature  of  things,  be  above  the  powers  of  limited  reason. 
This  faculty,  when  fairly  exercised,  must  be  competent  to  act 
decisively  upon  some  portions  of  truth ;  otherwise  it  has  been 
given  in  vain.  If  not  to  be  relied  on  in  any  case,  it  ceases  to  be 
useful,  and  fails  to  accomplish  the  very  purpose  for  which  it 
was  given. 

It  would  seem  to  be  a  just  conclusion,  that  every  system  of 
truth  must  possess  some  plain  principles,  readily  comprehended 
by  the  fair  exercise  of  reason,  and  some  more  complex  and  dif- 
ficult, either  entirely  beyond  the  reach  of  reason,  or  requiring 
the  utmost  exertion  of  its  power.* 

The  laws  of  nature  have  been  open  to  the  observation  of 
mankind  from  the  beginning ;  and  while  we  can,  and  do  know, 
the  plain  and  more  familiar  laws  of  nature,  so  that  we  can  pro- 
nounce with  certainty  that  a  particular  effect  or  event,  happen- 
ing under  a  given  state  of  circumstances,  was  a  clear  violation 
or  suspension  of  these  laws ;  yet  we  do  not  know,  and  may  never 
know,  all  the  laws  of  nature,  and  could  not,  therefore,  be  compe- 
tent to  speak  decisively  as  to  the  true  character  of  some  events 
that  have  occurred,  or  that  may  hereafter  occur. 

The  first  principles  of  the  science  of  mathematics,  the  most 
certain  of  all  the  sciences,  are  so  simple  that  they  can  be  readi- 
ly understood  by  the  infantile  mind ;  yet  the  higher  problems, 
which  are  mathematically  demonstrable,  and  are,  therefore, 

*  The  fair  exercise  of  reason  would  lead  us  to  suppose  that  in  a  supernat- 
ural system,  there  would  be  mysteries  necessarily  above  the  comprehension  of 
reason.  By  the  exercise  of  reason  we  can  examine  the  proofs  of  Christianity, 
because  these  are  external  matters,  coming  legitimately  within  the  jurisdiction 
of  reason.  From  these  proofs  we  can  know  the  character  of  Christ ;  and  from 
His  Word  we  can  ascertain  the  plain  facts  and  principles  of  the  system ;  and 
these  will  lead  us  to  the  institution  founded  by  Him  as  tne  competent  guide 
of  all,  in  all  things,  mysteries  included. 


THE  GOVERNING  POWER  OF  THE  CHURCH.        67 

equally  true,  and  equally  capable  of  being  conclusively  shown  to 
be  so,  are  so  complex  that  it  requires  the  utmost  effort  of  the 
best  intellects  to  understand  them.  And  we  may  well  suppose 
that  there  are  mathematical  truths  that  never  will  be  known  to 
man.  So,  the  first  principles  of  the  science  of  civil  government 
are  pimple,  and  easily  understood,  while  there  are  others  exceed- 
ingly difficult  of  practical  application.  The  same  observations 
are  applicable  to  most,  if  not  to  all,  the  sciences.  If  it  were  not 
so,  the  powers  and  works  of  the  Great  Creator  would  be  limited 
to  the  entire  comprehension  of  reason,  and  the  creature  would 
be  equal,  at  least  in  intelligence,  to  his  Creator.  It  was  well 
said  by  the  great  Dr.  Johnson, 

"  Whose  prose  was  eloquence,  by  wisdom  taught, 
The  graceful  vehicle  of  virtuous  thought," 

that  "  the  human  mind  was  so  limited,  that  it  cannot  take  in  all 
parts  of  a  subject."  (Boswell's  Life  of  Johnson.) 

The  same  inseparable  incidents  must  belong  to  Christianity. 
Many  of  its  truths  are  plain,  simple,  and  easily  understood,  while 
some  are  difficult,  and  hard  to  be  understood.  To  establish  the 
truth  of  the  system  itself,  the  appeal  must  be  made,  in  the  first 
instance,  to  reason  in  some  form.  We  can  only  predicate  our 
faith  upon  testimony,  and  this  must  be  fairly  tested  by  reason, 
founded  upon  experience,  before  we  can  believe  it.  Now,  among 
the  matters  that  can  be  best  known  to  man,  is  the  true  charac- 
ter of  human  testimony.  Men  all  possess  the  same  essential  na- 
ture, and  are  in  constant  daily  association  and  intercourse  with 
each  other  ;  and,  therefore,  must  be  held  competent  to  estimate 
the  force  and  value  of  the  evidence  given  by  themselves.  The 
gifted  and  accomplished  young  Judge  Jones,  upon  his  death- 
bed, used  this  language :  "  I  have  never  been  an  infidel.  I  had 
examined  the  positive  evidences  for  Christianity,  and  they  great- 
ly preponderated  in  favor  of  its  truth ;  and,  taken  in  connection 
with  its  appropriate  fitness  to  man's  wants  and  nature,  it  was,  as  a 
lawyer  would  say,  a  plain  case  upon  the  face  of  the  papers."  And 
Dr.  Johnson  has  said  that  no  honest  man  could  be  a  deist,  "  after 
a  fair  examination  of  the  proofs  of  Christianity."  (Boswell.) 

Among  the  matters  that  must  be  within  the  legitimate  sphere 
of  reason,  and  that  must  be  well  known  and  understood,  are  the 


68        THE  GOVERNING  POWER  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

plain,  practical,  and  luminous  principles  of  government — those 
foundations  upon  which  society  itself  is  based.  Men  have  been 
under  government,  in  some  form,  from  the  earliest  times,  and 
must,  therefore,  be  competent  to  understand  the  plain  principles 
of  that  science,  if  there  be  any  such  in  the  system.  Proceeding 
upon  this  ground,  it  has  been  my  object  to  show  the  considera- 
tions, drawn  from  reason  and  experience,  that  naturally  led  me 
to  form  some  idea  of  the  leading  and  most  apparent  features  of 
that  government  actually  instituted  by  Christ.  For  it  was  plain 
to  my  understanding,  that  while  governments  must  differ  from 
each  other  in  those  respects  that  constitute  them  different  gov- 
ernments^ they  must  agree  in  those  fundamental  respects  that 
constitute  government  itself. 

§  5.  The  testimony  of  Christ  as  to  the  governing  power  of  the 

Church. 

In  the  last  verses  of  Matthew's  Gospel,  before  our  Lord  as- 
cended into  heaven,  and  while  He  was  with  the  eleven  disciples 
in  a  mountain  in  Galilee,  He  said  unto  them : 

"  All  power  is  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  in  earth.  Go 
ye.  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name 
of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  teaching 
them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you  : 
and  lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world." 

The  first  part  of  this  wide  commission  is,  "  Go — teach  all  na- 
tions." 

This  commission  was  first  addressed  to  the  eleven  disciples, 
and  constituted  the  office  of  teacher.  They  were  to  teach  the 
nations  to  observe  ah1  things  that  Christ  had  commanded  them 
to  observe. 

This  right  to  teach  is  the  most  essential  attribute  bestowed 
upon  the  governing  power  in  the  church.  In  the  nature  of 
mere  civil  government,  as  I  have  attempted  to  show  in  a  previ- 
ous chapter,  the  legislator  could  not  rightfully  require  faith  in 
the  justice  of  his  laws,  for  he  would  require  a  belief  in  what 
might  be  a  falsehood.  But  in  a  government  constituted  by 
Christ,  it  is  reasonable  that  faith  should  be  required,  as  well  as 
simple  compliance  in  acts  /  for  obedience  will  be  more  perfect 
when  we  believe  in  the  unquestioned  justice  of  a  law ;  and  Christ 


THE  GOVERNING  POWER  OF  THE  CHURCH.        69 

intended  to  create  a  closer  union  among  the  members  of  His 
church  than  exists  among  the  citizens  or  subjects  of  a  civil  gov 
ernment,  and  faith  was  necessary  for  this  purpose.  If  we  obey 
a  law  because  we  are  forced  to  do  so,  whether  we  think  it  just 
or  unjust,  we  render  but  a  reluctant  and  unwilling  obedience. 
This  is  not  the  kind  of  obedience  that  an  infinite  lawgiver  would 
require.  He  would  rightfully  require  perfect  obedience  to  a  per- 
fect law. 

Faith,  then,  being  required,  the  necessity  of  a  power  to 
teach  becomes  evident.  This  commission  plainly  distinguishes 
between  two  separate  and  distinct  classes  of  men — teachers  and 
persons  taught ;  for  while  one  class  is  commanded  to  "  teach," 
the  other  class  is  commanded  to  "  observe."  In  the  reason  and 
nature  of  things,  there  could  not  exist  teachers  without  persons 
to  be  taught.  The  two  classes  must  exist,  or  there  could  be  no 
employment  for  either.  The  only  command  here  given  to  the 
eleven  was  to  "  teach  and  baptize  " — the  nations  were  to  "  ob- 
serve." The  disciples  had  been  previously  commanded  to  "  ob- 
serve "  what  they  were  now,  in  the  commission,  only  command- 
ed to  "teach.''  The  previous  commands  would  secure  their 
observance,  and  the  present  command  would  secure  their  teach- 
ing. The  commission  was  addressed  to  them  as  teachers,  con- 
stituting a  separate  and  distinct  class  of  men,  to  whom  the 
power  to  teach  and  baptize  was  given  ;  and  it  was  only  as  teach- 
ers, and  in  the  duties  as  such,  that  Christ  promised  to  be  "  with 
them  to  the  end  of  the  world."  Christ  first  tells  them,  "  Go 
teach,"  &c.,  and  then  in  the  same  sentence  immediately  adds, 
"  and  lo,  I  am  with  you,"  only  connecting  His  promised  assist- 
ance with  their  teaching.  He  does  not,  in  this  place,  promise 
to  be  with  them  in  any  other  capacity,  but  as  teachers.  The 
words  "  Go  teach,"  first  constituted  them  teachers,  and  all  that 
followed  after  those  words  was  addressed  to  them  only  in  that 
capacity. 

In  the  tenth  chapter  of  St.  Luke  our  Lord  said  to  the  sev- 
enty disciples,  "  He  that  heareth  you,  heareth  me  ;  and  he  that 
despiseth  you,  despiseth  me ;  and  he  that  despiseth  me,  despis- 
eth  him  that  sent  me." 

Now,  although  this  is  said  to  the  seventy  sent  upon  a  special 
mission,  it  shows  one  thing,  and  establishes  one  important  princi- 


70        THE  GOVERNING  POWER  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

pie,  that  they  were  first  invested  with  authority  by  Christ,  and 
when  so  invested,  that  they  acted  as  His  agents,  and  any  insult 
to  them,  in  their  capacity  as  His  agents,  was  an  insult  to  Him, 
and  to  his  Father  who  sent  him. 

§  6.  Testimony  of  St.  Paul. 

St.  Paul,  in  the  tenth  chapter  of  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans, 
says: 

"  How  shall  they  call  on  him  in  whom  they  have  not  be- 
lieved ?  and  how  shall  they  believe  in  him,  of  whom  they  have 
not  heard  ?  and  how  shall  they  hear  without  a  preacher  ?  and 
how  shall  they  preach  except  they  be  sent  ?  >J 

Although  this  language  is  in  the  interrogative  form,  yet  un- 
der a  well-known  rule  of  construction,  there  are  four  affirmative 
facts  asserted  in  this  extract.  The  apostle  having  stated  in  the 
preceding  verse  that  "  whosoever  shall  call  upon  the  name  of 
the  Lord  shall  be  saved,"  assumes  the  four  positions  so  distinctly 
stated  in  the  passage.  It  was  clear  that  the  preacher  could  not 
preach  unless  he  was  sent — that  he  could  not  send  himself;  and 
it  is  equally  clear  that  the  party  to  hear  and  believe  was  not  the 
preacher  sent.  In  other  words,  there  were  two  classes — teach- 
ers and  persons  taught.  St.  Paul  does  not  here  give  us  any 
statement  as  to  the  manner  of  sending  preachers,  or  as  to  who 
sends  them.  These  matters  are  stated  in  other  epistles. 

The  same  apostle,  in  his  first  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians, 
chapter  12,  verses  28  and  29,  says : 

"  And  God  hath  set  some  in  the  church,  first  apostles — sec- 
ondarily prophets — thirdly  teachers,  Are  all  apostles?  are 
all  prophets  ?  are  all  teachers  ?  " 

/This  is  explicit  as  to  the  fact  that,  in  St.  Paul's  time,  a  cer- 
tain order  of  men  had  the  right  to  teach,  and  that  all  had  not. 

St.  Paul  (Hebrews  xiii.  7,  17)  uses  this  clear  and  explicit 
language  : 

"  Remember  them  which  have  the  rule  over  you,  who  have 
spoken  unto  you  the  word  of  God  :  whose  faith  follow,  consid- 
ering the  end  of  their  conversation." 

"  Obey  them  that  have  the  rule  over  you,  and  submit  your- 
selves :  for  they  watch  for  your  souls  as  they  that  must  give 


THE  GOVERNING  POWER  OF  THE  CHURCH.        71 

an  account,  that  they  may  do  it  with  joy  and  not  with  grief: 
for  that  is  unprofitable  for  you." 

It  is  difficult  to  conceive  of  language  more  explicit  and  more 
to  the  point  than  the  foregoing  extracts.  The  following  points 
seem  most  distinctly  stated  : 

1 .  That  a  certain  order  of  men  had  the  rule  over  the  church. 

2.  That  this  order  of  men  were  those  who  "  had  spoken  unto 
em  the  word  of  God." 

3.  That  the  Hebrews  were  commanded  to  "follow  the  faith" 
of  them  who  "  had  the  rule  over  them." 

4.  That  they  were  commanded  to  obey  those  who  "  had  the 
rule  over  them,"  for  the  reason  that  those  rulers  "  watched  for 
their  souls,  as  they  that  must  give  an  account." 

Now  it  is  evident  that  those  who  had  the  rule  over  the 
church  were  one  class,  and  those  who  were  commanded  to  obey 
were  another  and  a  distinct  class.  The  rulers  had  the  right  to 
rule,  as  to  matters  of  faith,  for  those  commanded  to  obey  were 
to  "follow  the  faith"  of  those  who  had  spoken  unto  them  the 
word  of  God.  Now  connect  this  with  the  commission  "  Go 
teach,"  and  it  is  plain  that  teaching  was  one  of  the  leading  pow- 
ers of  government  bestowed  upon  the  apostles  and  their  suc- 
cessors, as  teachers,  and  that  those  who  had  the  rule  over  the 
church  had  the  right  to  teach  authoritatively,  in  Christ's  name, 
in  matters  of  faith.  And  as  those  who  have  the  rule  over  the 
church  have  the  right  to  teach  faith,  there  is  a  great  responsibil- 
ity resting  upon  them,  because  they  "  watch  for  the  souls  "  of 
those  over  whom  they  have  the  rule,  as  "  they  that  must  give 
an  account."  It  is  a  just  principle,  universally  adopted,  that 
where  great  powers  are  given  great  responsibility  is  imposed, 
and  the  officer  is  held  to  a  strict  account. 

St.  Paul  says  to  his  Hebrew  brethren  "  Remember,"  an  ex- 
pression always  denoting  great  earnestness  on  the  part  of  the 
writer  or  speaker,  and  calling  the  particular  attention  of  the 
persons  addressed  to  what  follows.  He  then  says,  "  Them 
which  have  the  rule  over  you,  who  have  spoken  unto  you  the 
word  of  God,  whose  faith  follow  ; "  that  is,  whose  faith  do  you 
follow.  He  first  tells  them  to  remember  them  who  have  the 
rule  over  them,  and  then  tells  them  how  they  are  to  remember 
them,  and  that  is  by  following  THEIR  faith.  In  the  second  ex- 


72        THE  GOVERNING  POWER  OF  THE  CHUECH. 

tract  he  is  equally  emphatic.  He  first  says,  "  obey  them  that 
have  the  rule  over  you,"  and  as  if  this  was  not  sufficiently  strong 
and  clear,  he  adds,  "  and  submit  yourselves,"  and  then  gives 
them  the  reasons  why  they  should  obey  and  submit. 

Now  the  terms  rule,  obey,  and  submit,  can  mean  nothing  in 
this  connection  but  government  and  obedience.  The  word 
rule  here  means  government ;  and  to  govern  is  to  "  control  the 
will  and  actions  of  others,  either  by  arbitrary  power  and  au- 
thority, or  by  established  laws."  (Webster.)  The  rule  or  gov- 
ernment which  those  orders  had  over  the  Church,  was  only  the 
power  to  control  the  will  and  actions  by  established  laws,  and 
not  by  arbitrary  power.  The  word  obey  here  means  "  to  com- 
ply with  the  commands,  orders,  or  instructions  of  a  superior  ; " 
and  to  submit  is  "  to  be  subject ;  to  acquiesce  in  the  authority 
of  another."  (Webster.) 

In  the  fourth  chapter  of  St.  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians, 
we  find  this  language  : 

"And  he  gave  some,  apostles;  and  some,  prophets;  and 
some,  evangelists ;  and  some,  pastors  and  teachers  ;  for  the  per- 
fecting of  the  saints,  for  the  work  of  the  ministry,  for  the  edify- 
ing of  the  body  of  Christ ;  till  we  all  come  in  the  unity  of  the 
faith,  and  of  the  knowledge  of  the  Son  of  God,  unto  a  perfect 
man,  unto  the  measure  of  the  stature  of  the  fulness  of  Christ ; 
that  we  henceforth  be  no  more  children,  tossed  to  and  fro,  and 
carried  about  by  every  wind  of  doctrine,  by  the  sleight  of  men, 
and  cunning  craftiness,  whereby  they  lie  in  wait  to  deceive ; 
but  speaking  the  truth  in  love,  may  grow  up  into  him  in  all 
things,  which  is  the  head,  even  Christ :  from  whom  the  whole 
body,  fitly  joined  together  and  compacted  by  that  which  every 
joint  supplieth,  according  to  the  effectual  working  in  the  meas- 
ure of  every  part,  maketh  increase  of  the  body,  unto  the  edify- 
ing of  itself  in  love." 

This  is  one  of  the  most  clear  and  distinct  passages  found  in 
the  writings  of  St.  Paul.  It  contains  a  great  many  particulars 
in  the  same  long  sentence,  all  closely  and  beautifully  connected, 
and  as  consistent  as  that  unity  of  the  faith,  and  knowledge  of 
the  Son  of  God,  of  which  he  speaks. 

He  first  speaks  of  a  certain  order  of  men,  consisting  of  sev- 
eral grades — apostles,  prophets,  evangelists,  teachers,  and  pas- 


THE  GOVERNING  POWER  OF  THE  CHUKCH.        73 

tors — all  given  for  certain  specific  purposes,  namely :  "for  the 
perfecting  of  the  saints,  for  the  work  of  the  ministry,  for  the 
edifying  of  the  body  of  Christ,"  i.  e.,  the  Church ;  and  the  im- 
mediate end  of  this  authoritative  labor,  this  perfecting  of  the 
saints,  this  work  of  the  ministry,  this  edifying  of  the  Church, 
was,  that  the  members  of  the  church  might  "  all  come  in  the 
unity  of  the  faith  and  of  the  knowledge  of  the  Son  of  God ;"  and 
this  unity  of  faith  and  knowledge  must  be  perfect,  "  unto  the 
measure  of  the  stature  of  the  fulness  of  Christ ;"  and  the  legiti- 
mate result  or  effect  of  this  unity  in  this  perfect  knowledge  of 
the  Son  of  God  is,  that  "  we  henceforth  be  no  more  children, 
tossed  to  and  fro,  and  carried  about  by  every  wind  of  doctrine," 
"  but  speaking  the  truth  in  love,  we  may  grow  up  into  him  in 
all  things,  which  is  the  head,  even  Christ ; "  so  that  every  part 
of  this  body,  the  church,  might  be  "fitly  joined  together  and 
compacted /"  and  thus,  being  fitly  joined  and  compacted,  the 
"  effectual  working  of  every  part "  might  make  "  increase  of  th: 
body,"  thus  answering  the  prayer  of  Christ  for  the  unity  of  Jfif 
followers,  that  the  world  might  believe  that  the  Father  had  sent 
Him. 

In  this  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  the  apostle  tells  us  that 
there  was  a  certain  order  of  men  given  for  certain  purposes,  and 
in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  he  tells  us  to  "  follow  the  faith  of 
those  who  have  the  rule  over  us,"  and  these  are  they  "  who  have 
spoken  unto  us  the  word  of  God."  Now  put  these  passages 
together,  and  do  not  these  results  inevitably  follow? 

1.  That  the  "  rule  "  or  government  of  the  church  was  given 
to  a  certain  order  of  men. 

2.  That  among  the  powers  granted,  was  especially  the  power 
to  "  teach." 

3.  That  this  order  of  men  taught  authoritatively,  for  the 
Hebrews  were  expressly  commanded  to  obey  and  submit  to  them 
by  following  their  faith. 

4.  And  by  following  implicitly  the  faith  of  this  order  of  men, 
as  they  were  commanded  to  do,  we  can  most  readily  understand 
how  the  ancient  Christians  could  come  to  the  "  unity  of  the 
faith  ; "  and  that  while  they  followed  the  faith  of  those  who  had 
the  rule  over  them,  they  would  be  certainly  guarded  against 

8 


74        THE  GOVERNING  POWER  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

being  "  tossed  to  and  fro,  and  carried  about  by  every  wind  of 
doctrine." 

5.  That  the  legitimate  result  of  all  this  would  be  the  per- 
fect and  harmonious  action  of  the  Church,  which  would  "  make 
increase  "  of  its  numbers,  and  edify  "  itself  in  love." 

§  7.  Further  testimony  of  tSt.  Paul. 

The  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  to  Timothy  and  Titus,  were  ad- 
dressed to  them  in  their  capacity  as  Teachers.  The  whole  drift, 
spirit,  and  language  of  these  Epistles  show  that  Timothy  and 
Titus  had  "  the  rale  "  over  their  respective  churches.  To  Tim 
othy  St.  Paul  says  : 

"  As  I  besought  thee  to  abide  still  at  Ephesus,  when  I  went 
into  Macedonia,  that  thou  niightest  charge  some,  that  they  teach 
no  other  doctrine." 

"  This  charge  I  commit  unto  thee,  son  Timothy." 

Speaking  of  bishops,  among  other  things  he  says  : 

"  One  that  ruleth  well  his  own  house,  having  his  children  in 
subjection,  with  all  gravity,  (for  if  a  man  know  not  how  to  rule 
his  own  house,  how  shall  he  take  care  of  the  church  of  God?)" 

After  mentioning  many  things,  the  apostle  tells  Timothy : 

"  These  things  "  [do  thou]  "  command  and  teach." 

"  Let  the  elders  that  rule  well  be  counted  worthy  of  double 
honor,  especially  they  who  labor  in  the  word  and  doctrine." 

"  Let  no  man  despise  thy  youth." 

"  Neglect  not  the  gift  that  is  in  thee." 

"  These  things  give  in  charge,  that  they  may  be  blameless." 

"  These  things  teach  and  exhort." 

Speaking  of  certain  false  teachers,  the  apostle  says  to  Tim- 
othy: 

"  From  such  withdraw  thyself." 

"  O !  Timothy,  keep  that  which  is  committed  to  thy  trust," 
&c. 

"  Wherefore,  I  put  thee  in  remembrance,  that  thou  stir  up 
the  gift  of  God  which  is  in  thee,  by  the  putting  on  of  my  hands." 

"  Hold  fast  the  form  of  sound  words,  which  thou  hast  heard 
of  me,  in  faith  and  love,  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus.  That  good 
thing  which  was  committed  unto  thee,  keep  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
which  dwelleth  in  us." 


THE  GOVERNING  POWEK  OF  THE  CHURCH.        75 

"  And  the  things  that  thou  hast  heard  of  me  among  many 
witnesses,  the  same  commit  thou  to  faithful  men,  who  shall  be 
able  to  teach  others  also." 

To  his  sou  Titus,  the  apostle  says  : 

"  For  this  cause  left  I  thee  in  Crete,  that  thou  shouldest  set 
in  order  the  things  that  are  wanting,  and  ordain  elders  in  every 
city,  as  I  had  appointed  thee." 

"  These  things  [do  you]  speak,  and  exhort  with  all  author- 
ity. Let  no  man  despise  thee." 

"  A  man  that  is  a  heretic  after  the  first  and  second  admoni- 
tion [do  you]  reject."* 

Now  these  quotations  show  that  Timothy  and  Titus,  as  min- 
isters^ had  the  right  to  "  command  and  teach  "  "  with  all  author- 
ity ;"  and  in  thus  doing,  they  would  but  carry  out  the  original 
commission  given  by  Christ  to  His' apostles.  St.  Paul  tells  Tim- 
othy "  to  charge  some  that  they  teach  no  other  doctrine."  The 
term  charge  implies  authority,  and  the  apostle  uses  it  in  this  sense 
when  he  says,  "  this  charge  I  commit  to  thee,"  &c.  He  compares 
the  ruling  of  a  household  to  "  taking  care  of  the  church."  Now 
to  know  what  is  meant  by  the  phrase  "taking  care  of,"  we 
need  only  to  refer  to  the  seventeenth  verse  of  the  fifth  chapter, 
where  he  says,  "  Let  the  elders  that  rule  well  be  counted  wor- 
thy of  double  honor,  especially  they  that  labor  in  the  word  and 
doctrine."  So  that  "  to  take  care  of  the  church  "  means  to  rule 
the  church  ;  as  is  still  further  shown  from  the  fact  that  "  taking 
care  of  the  church  "  is  compared  to  ruling  a  family,  where  the 
father  does  speak  with  authority.  "These  things  command  and 
teach."  The  words  "  command  "  and  "  teach  "  imply  nothing 
but  authority.  If  Timothy  had  the  right  to  command  and  teach, 
and  it  was  made  his  express  duty  so  to  do,  then  it  must  have 
been  the  duty  of  some  one  to  obey. 

Speaking  of  certain  proud  and  perverse  teachers,  the  apostle 
tells  Timothy,  "  From  such  withdraw  thyself."  Now  it  is  plain 
that  Timothy  was  to  decide  who  these  teachers  were.  The 
apostle  gives  him  a  description  of  such  a  class,  in  general  terms, 
but  leaves  Timothy  to  decide  the  question  whether  a  particular 

*  These  sentences  being  elliptical,  I  have  put  in  brackets  the  words  neces- 
sary to  fill  them  up. 


76        THE  GOVERNING  POWER  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

individual  came  within  the  definition.  In  other  words,  Paul, 
the  inspired  apostle,  as  such,  laid  down  the  law  to  Timothy, 
leaving  Timothy  to  construe  the  law,  and  administer  it  in  each 
particular  case  as  it  arose.  "  Let  no  man  despise  thy  youth." 

The  apostle,  after  stating  to  Titus  that  "  there  are  many  vair 
talkers  and  deceivers,"  commands  Titus  to  "  rebuke  them  sharp- 
ly, that  they  may  be  sound  in  the  faith."  He  further  com- 
mands Titus :  "  These  things  speak,  and  exhort,  and  rebuke 
with  all  authority.''  Now  here  was  the  most  explicit  authority 
given  Titus  to  "  rebuke  sharply,"  and  then  "  with  all  authori- 
ty /"  and  the  object  of  these  sharp  and  authoritative  rebukes 
was,  that  those  thus  rebuked  might  "  be  sound  in  the  faith." 
But  the  authority  of  Titus  did  not  stop  here.  He  was  not  only 
to  "  rebuke,  exhort,  and  speak  with  all  authority,"  that  those 
thus  rebuked,  exhorted,  and  taught  might  "  become  sound  in  the 
faith,"  but  he  was  expressly  commanded  to  "  reject  a  heretic, 
after  the  first  and  second  admonition."  These  commands  were 
given  to  Titus  as  a  minister,  having  the  rule  over  the  church  at 
Crete.  He  was  first  to  decide  who  were  the  "  vain  talkers  and 
deceivers ;"  he  was  then  to  "  exhort  and  rebuke  them  sharply, 
and  with  all  authority,"  that  they  might  become  "  sound  in  the 
faith  ; "  but  if  they  persisted  after  the  first  and  second  admoni- 
tion, he  was  to  reject  them  as  heretics.  Titus  was  the  judge, 
who  was  to  decide  whether  certain  opinions  were  heretical,  and 
he  was  to  reject  the  heretic.  He  had  the  authority  to  rule  or 
govern.  Paul  says  to  him,  "Let  no  man  despise  thee:"  that 
is,  in  the  discharge  of  thy  duties.  In  other  words,  let  no  man  de- 
spise thy  authority.  This  is  clear  from  the  words  going  before, 
as  well  as  from  the  fact  that  the  whole  Epistle  is  addressed  to 
Titus  in  his  capacity  of  teacher^  and  regards  him  in  that  capaci- 
ty, and  not  as  an  individual,  having  no  oflicial  authority. 

Among  the  powers  conferred  upon  Timothy  and  Titus  were 
the  following : 

1.  The  power  to  command  and  teach,  rebuke  and  exhort, 
with  all  authority. 

2.  To  ordain  elders. 

3.  To  reject  heretics. 

And  these  powers  were  given  them  by  the  laying  on  ot  the 
hands  of  the  apostle,  and  were  to  be  exercised  by  them,  and 


THE  GOVERNING  POWER  OF  THE  CHURCH.        77 

not  by  the  members  of  the  church  at  large.  These  powers  were 
most  full  and  ample.  Putting  all  these  passages  together,  as 
well  as  taking  the  general  drift  and  spirit  of  the  whole  system, 
how  readily  we  can  see  the  manner  and  the  means  by  which  the 
members  of  the  church  were  brought  to  "the  unity  of  the  faith."  * 
The  process  was  most  simple  and  beautiful,  efficient  and  ration- 
al. Christ  organized  His  followers  into  a  visible  Church,  which 
is  a  united  body  of  living  men.  In  this  church  He  instituted  a 
certain  order  of  men,  unto  whom  He  delegated  the  governing 
power  of  the  Church.  According  to  the  laws  governing  this  in- 
stitution, faith  was  required  of  each  member.  The  power  to 
"  teach  "  faith  "  with  authority  "  was  therefore  necessary,  and 
was  the  principal  power  of  government  to  be  exercised  by  this 
order  of  men.  They  taught  as  the  agents  and  officers  of  Christ, 
the  founder  of  the  institution.  The  members  of  the  church  were 
required  to  "  follow  the  faith  "  of  these  teachers,  and  to  obey 
them ;  and  when  a  member  refused  to  do  this,  he  was  "  rejected 
as  a  heretic." 

In  this  way  "  the  unity  of  the  faith  "  was  kept  pure  in  the 
church.  As  often  as  a  member  became  infected  with  improper 
opinions,  he  was  rebuked,  exhorted,  and  admonished  twice,  and 
if  he  still  persisted,  he  was  rejected.  And  this  process  was  pur- 
sued towards  others  as  often  as  occasion  might  require.  It  is 
obvious  that  there  could  be  left  in  the  church  nothing  but  "  the 
unity  of  the  faith  "  spoken  of  by  St.  Paul.  There  could  be  no 
process  more  simple  and  efficient  than  this.  It  accords  with  all 
the  laws  of  reason,  with  human  nature,  and  with  the  first  and 
most  essential  principles  whereon  all  governments  of  law  must 
be  based. 

The  power  to  expel  for  heresy  is  a  necessary  incident  to  the 
power  to  teach,  given  by  Christ  in  the  commission ;  and  the 
power  to  expel  for  heresy  necessarily  includes  the  power  to  de- 
termine what  heresy  is,  and  what  it  is  not.  It  is  one  of  the 
plainest  principles  of  law,  that  when  power  is  given  to  the  agent 
to  do  a  certain  thing,  the  means  necessary  to  accomplish  the 
end  are  inseparable  incidents ;  otherwise,  the  grant  of  power 

*  How  forcible  and  beautiful  is  that  expression  of  St.  Paul,  "  The  unity  of 
tlw  faith." 


78        THE  GOVERNING  POWER  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

would  be  idle.  To  say  to  the  agent,  "  Do  this,"  and  yet  give 
him  no  means  wherewith  to  do  it,  would  be  wholly  useless. 
Titus  was  commanded  to  admonish  and  to  reject  the  heretic ; 
and  whatever  may  be  the  definition  of  heresy,  it  was  a  crime 
against  the  law  of  Christ,  and  must  be  judged  by  that  law.  If 
Titus  was  to  reject  the  heretic,  he  must,  of  necessity,  decide 
what  was  heresy,  as  defined  by  the  law  making  it  criminal.  In 
other  words,  he  must  construe  the  law,  and  determine  authori- 
tatively the  question  arising  under  the  law. 

ISTow  those  who  were  commanded  to  admonish  and  reject  her- 
etics were  those  whose  faith  the  early  Christians  were  command- 
ed to  follow.  And  from  the  Scriptures  alone,  the  mode  of 
teaching,  the  powers  of  the  teachers,  and  the  duties  of  the  mem- 
bers taught,  may  be  stated  concisely  thus  : 

1.  The  lay  members  of  the  church  were  to  "  obey"  "submit 
to"  and  "  follow  the  faith  "  of  their  teachers  who  had  ''  the  rule 
over  them."     This  secured  unity  of  faith  between  the  teachers 
and  the  persons  taught. 

2.  In  case  of  any  serious  difference  among  the  teachers  them- 
selves, as  to  any  point  of  faith  to  be  taught,  a  council  was  called, 
and  the  question  therein  settled,  both  by  argument,  and  the  aid  of 
the  Holy  Ghost.    This  secured  unity  in  the  college  of  teachers. 

3.  The  united  effect  of  both  these  was  unity  in  the  entire 
body,  the  church. 

§  8.  The  powers  of  government  bestowed  upon  the  apostolical 
church,  continuing. 

This  was  the  process  of  governing  the  church  in  the  days  of 
the  apostles.  There  was  a  certain  order  of  men  that  had  the 
rule  over  the  church.  They  taught,  they  ordained  elders,  they 
expelled  heretics,  and  they,  in  a  word,  exercised  all  the  powers 
necessary  to  govern  the  institution  as  it  was  then  constituted. 
The  acts  of  government  that  we  know  were  then  exercised  by 
that  order  of  men,  were  all  that  the  nature  of  the  institution 
required. 

The  question  then  arises  whether  this  order  of  men  had  suc- 
cei.3ion,  and  still  exists  in  the  church.  I  must  refer  to  previous 
reuiarks,  showing  the  necessity  for  succession  of  officers.  There 
can  be  nothing  more  plain  and  palpable  than  this,  that  if  Christ 


THE  GOVERNING  POWER  OF  THE  CHURCH.         70 

did  organize  any  visible  church,  and  institute  any  government 
for  it,  and,  therefore,  did  create  OFFICES  to  be  tilled  by  men, 
and  these  offices  were  intended  to  continue  so  long  as  the  church 
itself  should  last,  either  the  first  incumbents  were  to  live  while 
the  church  existed,  or  there  must  be  a  succession  of  officers.  It 
follows  also  that  so  long  as  the  office  remains  unchanged,  the 
successor  must  have  the  same  powers  as  his  predecessor ;  for  it 
is  the  office  that  gives  power  to  the  man,  and  not  the  man  to 
the  office. 

Christ  organized  and  perfected  the  Christian  government, 
and  made  the  permanent  Christian  code  of  laws  for  its  guidance. 
The  system  came  from  Christ  and  His  apostles  possessing  cer- 
tain characteristics  or  constituent  principles.  Either  Christ 
intended  to  institute  some  government  in  the  Church,  or  He 
intended  to  organize  no  visible  Church  at  all.  For  I  cannot 
conceive  of  a  continuing  visible  Church,  the  pillar  and  ground 
of  the  truth,  without  government.  If  He  did  institute  such 
government,  He  must  have  placed  the  governing  power  some- 
where in  the  Church  /  and,  in  doing  this,  He  must  have  created 
certain  offices,  to  which  were  given  certain  official  powers;  and 
those  offices  were  intended  to  be  filled  by  men,  so  long  as  the 
association  should  continue  to  exist.  If  there  were  no  offices 
in  the  church,  how  could  there  exist  any  government  ?  And 
how  could  offices  exist  without  official  power  ?  And  how  could 
official  power  exist  equally  in  each  and  every  member  of  the 
association  ?  In  such  case,  who  would  govern  and  who  would 
obey? 

The  founder  of  any  government  has  the  right  to  establish 
the  offices  necessary  to  its  successful  administration  ;  and  this 
right  is  usually  exercised  in  reference  to  the  more  important 
offices.  It  would  have  been  a  strange  anomaly,  indeed,  if  Christ 
had  created  no  offices  for  the  government  of  His  Church.  It 
would  have  left  the  system  exceedingly  imperfect. 

That  He  did  create  certain  offices,  is  shown  from  the  extracts 
already  given,  and  from  the  language  of  St.  Paul  in  his  first 
Epistle  to  Timothy,  where  he  speaks  of"  the  office  of  a  bishop" 
and  "  the  office  of  a  deacon  ;  "  and  the  only  question  to  deter- 
mine is,  whether  those  offices  were  intended  to  continue  in  the 
church  while  the  church  itself  should  last.  If  Christ  did  create 


80        THE  GOVERNING  POWER  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

certain  offices  in  the  church,  and  there  is  no  limitation  put  to 
the  duration  of  the  office,  either  by  the  mere  temporary  nature 
of  the  duty  to  be  performed,  or  by  the  express  words  of  the  law 
creating  the  office,  then  the  intent  would  seem  to  be  plain,  that 
the  existence  of  the  office  would  be  commensurate  with  the  ex- 
istence of  the  system  itself. 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  organized  a  govern- 
ment. It  is  not  stated  in  the  instrument  how  long  the  system 
was  intended  to  continue ;  and  yet  it  was  intended  to  be  per- 
petual, for  the  reason  that  no  limit  is  given.  When  a  corpora- 
tion is  created,  and  no  limit  put  to  its  existence,  it  must  be  held 
to  be  perpetual ;  for  while  the  law  will  presume  the  death  of  a 
natural  person  after  the  expiration  of  a  certain  period  of  time, 
it  will  not  presume  the  death  of  an  artificial  being  which  may 
live  on. 

By  the  Constitution,  the  executive  power  is  vested  in  a  pres- 
ident, and  the  judicial  power  in  one  supreme  court,  and  such 
inferior  courts  as  Congress  may  establish.  It  is  not  stated  in 
express  terms  that  the  office  of  president  shall  exist  so  long  as 
the  Constitution  endures ;  and  yet  this  is  the  palpable  intent, 
because  the  office  is  created  as  a  part  of  the  system,  and  must 
necessarily  continue  so  long  as  the  government  itself  shall  last. 
If  an  office  be  created  in  the  organization  of  the  government, 
unless  its  duration  be  limited  as  before  stated,  the  intent  of  the 
founder  is  plain,  that  the  office  must  continue  as  a  part  of  the 
system. 

That  our  Lord  did  create  certain  offices,  the  duties  of  which 
were  not  temporary  but  perpetual,  and  not  limited  in  their  du- 
ration by  express  words,  or  by  the  acts  of  those  who  put  the 
system  into  practical  operation,  there  would  seem  to  be  no 
doubt.  As  knowledge  cannot  be  inherited,  but  must  be  ac- 
quired, each  succeeding  generation  must  be  taught  as  was  the 
preceding  one.  For  this  reason  the  duty  of  teaching  is  perpet- 
ual, because  the  system  to  be  taught  is  so. 

§  9.   The  power  to  teach  was  not  personal  to  the  apostles. 

That  the  commission  constituted  the  authority  of  the  apos- 
tles, and  empowered  and  required  them  to  teach  all  things 
whatsoever  Christ  had  commanded  them  to  observe,  cannot 


THE  GOVERNING  POWER  OF  THE  CHURCH.         81 

be  disputed.  The  only  question  is,  whether  the  power  thereby 
conferred,  was  a  power  personal  to  them,  and  therefore  tempo- 
rary ;  or  whether,  by  this  commission  the  office  of  teacher  was 
not  created,  and  the  power  given  to  the  office  itself,  and  the 
apostles  merely  appointed  the  first  officers ;  and  their  powers 
were  not,  therefore,  to  cease  at  their  deaths,  but  to  continue 
down  to  their  successors  in  this  office,  through  all  coming  time. 
Was  it  intended  here  to  create  the  office  of  teacher  or  not  ? 
And  if  Christ  did  create  the  office,  did  He  intend  it  to  be  but 
temporary  ?  If  so,  did  He  put  any  limits  to  its  duration  ?  Was 
there  any  necessity  that  the  office  should  continue  while  the 
church  continues  ?  If  so,  the  same  reason  that  existed  for  the 
creation  of  the  office  must  exist  for  its  continuance. 

If  this  commission  gives  no  authority  but  to  the  apostles, 
upon  whom  it  was  supposed  to  be  alone  conferred,  there  could 
be  no  successors  under  this  commission,  and  no  authority  to 
teach  after  the  deaths  of  those  to  whom  it  was  first  given.  So 
far  as  this  commission  goes,  upon  this  supposition,  there  is  no 
authority  to  teach  vested  in  any  one ;  and  it  all  ceased  the  mo- 
ment the  last  apostle  died.  But,  on  the  contrary,  if  it  was  in- 
tended to  create  a  perpetual  office,  there  must  be  a  succession 
of  officers  having  the  same  powers  as  their  predecessors. 

The  command  to  teach,  and  the  promise,  "  Lo,  I  am  with 
you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world,"  are  so  closely  con- 
nected together,  that  the  existence  of  the  one  must  be  com- 
mensurate with  the  existence  of  the  other.  If  Christ  then  com- 
manded the  apostles  and  their  successors  to  teach,  He  equally 
promised  to  be  with  them  "  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the 
world ; "  and  He  does  not  promise  to  be  with  them  any  longer 
than  they  have  authority  to  teach.  If  this  promise  extends  to 
the  successors  of  the  apostles,  the  command  to  teach  does  also. 

The  power  to  baptize  is  also  given  in  this  commission,  and 
forms  a  portion  of  the  mass  of  inseparable  powers  bestowed 
upon  the  apostles  as  teachers.  The  power  to  teach  is,  first  given, 
and  then  the  power  to  baptize  those  taught,  which  is  only  car- 
rying out  the  power  to  teach,  and  forming  a  part  of  it ;  and, 
therefore,  the  power  to  teach  and  baptize  must  stand  or  fall  to- 
gether. If,  therefore,  the  power  to  teach  did  not  come  down 
to  the  successors  of  the  apostles,  in  virtue  of  the  commission, 
9 


82        THE  GOVERNING  POWKR  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

the  power  to  baptize  did  not.  Thus,  in  so  far  as  the  commission 
is  concerned,  there  is  no  power  in  the  Church,  since  the  days  oi 
the  apostles,  either  to  teach  or  baptize ;  and  we  must  look  to 
other  portions  of  the  Word  of  God  for  such  authority,  if  it  exist 
in  the  visible  Church  at  all. 

§  10.  Meaning  of  the  phrase  "end  of  the  world." 
Then  what  is  the  true  meaning  of  the  phrase  "  end  of  the 
world,"  as  it  stands  in  the  commission?*  Does  it  mean  the 
term  of  a  person's  natural  life  ?  There  is  not  a  single  instance 
in  the  New  Testament,  where  this  phrase  has  such  a  meaning. 
It  was  a  very  common  expression  with  our  Lord  ;  and,  when- 
ever used  by  Him,  has  one  invariable  meaning.  The  only  pas- 
sage that  can  be  brought  to  give  plausibility  to  such  a  meaning, 
is  found  in  the  twelfth  chapter  of  St.  Matthew,  where  our  Lord, 
speaking  of  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost,  says :  "  It  shall  not 
be  forgiven  him,  neither  in  this  world,  neither  in  the  world  to 
come."  Now,  might  not  the  word  world  in  this  connection 
mean  the  period  of  a  person's  natural  life,  during  which  this  sin 
shall  not  be  forgiven  ?  It  cannot.  The  expression  is  general, 
and  the  sentence  is  antithetic,  having  the  same  substantive  world 
in  both  members  of  the  sentence,  and  the  word  must  have  the 
same  power  in  both.  One  is  this  world,  and  the  other  the 
world  to  come.  They  both  signify  opposite  states.  The  world 
to  come  cannot  signify  the  term  or  duration  of  a  natural  life, 
but  clearly  signifies  a  future  order  or  state  of  things.  And  there- 
fore "  this  world  "  must  signify  the  present  or  existing  order.f 
In  every  instance  in  the  New  Testament  in  which  this  phrase 

*  Mr.  Rice,  in  his  debate  with  Mr.  Campbell,  says : 

"  We  know  that  the  apostles  were  authorized  and  commanded  to  baptize  and 
teach.  But  this  is  not  all ;  the  promise  extends  to  the  end  of  time." 

This  extract  clearly  supports  the  view  I  have  taken.  Mr.  R.  says,  "  the  end 
of  time." 

+  The  provision  of  the  law  is  general,  while  one  case  is  put  for  all.  In  the 
contemplation  of  Christ,  there  are  but  two  states,  this  world  and  the  world  to 
come ;  and  He  meant  to  lay  down  the  general  principle,  that  the  sin  against  the 
Holy  Ghost  would  not  be  forgiven  in  either  state.  The  practice  of  putting  one 
case  for  all,  and  of  using  the  masculine  for  both  the  masculine  and  feminity 
genders,  was  very  common  with  our  Lord,  as  it  is  with  all  lawmakers.  "  H<? 
that  believeth  and  is  baptized,1'  &c.  "  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water,"  &c. 


THE  GOVERNING  POWER  OF  THE  CHURCH.        83 

occurs,  it  means  the  end  of  the  present  state.  In  this  sense  it 
occurs  in  the  thirteenth  of  Matthew  :  "  The  harvest  is  the  end 
of  the  world."  "  So  shall  it  be  at  the  end  of  this  world."  This 
phrase  has  the  same  meaning,  where  the  disciples  ask  Christ 
what  shall  be  the  sign  of  His  coming,  and  of  the  "  end  of  the 
world."  If,  then,  Christ  promised  to  be  with  the  eleven  to  the 
end  of  the  existing  state  of  things,  one  of  two  things  must  be 
true :  either  that  the  apostles  were  to  live  to  the  end  of  the 
world,  or  the  promise  extends  to  their  successors,  and  was  so 
intended.* 

*  Mr.  Campbell  says : 

"  For  by  every  rule  of  interpretation,  I  must  apply  every  word  of  the  com- 
mission to  the  apostles ;  because  it  is  addressed  to  them  only." 

He  then  quotes  the  commission,  concluding  it  with,  "  and  lo,  I  am  with  you 
always,  even  to  the  conclusion  of  this  state,  or  to  the  end  of  the  age  or  world." 
(Debate  C.  &  P.,  52.) 

Now  I  understand  Mr.  C.  to  have  meant  by  the  phrase  "  conclusion  of  this 
state  "  the  end  of  the  present  state  of  existence  or  being.  In  other  words,  the 
end  of  time. 

Understanding  him  in  this  sense,  I  could  never  put  these  two  positions  to- 
gether. Christ  knew  that  His  apostles  would  not  live  beyond  the  period  of  hu- 
man life ;  and,  in  the  contemplation  of  this  theory,  the  command  and  promise 
contained  in  the  commission  were  both  personal  to  the  apostles,  and  both  expired 
with  them,  and  our  Lord  is,  therefore,  made  to  promise  His  infallible  aid  beyond 
the  period  when  it  would  be  needed.  I  could  never  understand  why  oar  Lord 
should  make  an  idle  and  gratuitous  promise  of  assistance,  when  He  only  intended 
to  afford  it  for  a  very  small  portion  of  the  time  fixed  by  the  promise  itself.  The 
promise  itself  extends  to  the  end  of  time,  and  yet  the  performance  of  it  is  limited 
to  the  days  of  the  apostles.  How  then  could  our  Lord  redeem  His  promise  to  be 
with  the  apostles  after  they  were  dead  ?  The  promise  was  to  infallibly  assist 
them  in  the  duty  of  teaching.  The  work  to  be  done  was  to  be  accomplished  in 
this  world,  and  the  promised  aid  was  to  be  given  here.  He  did  not  permit  them 
to  live  to  the  limit  fixed  for  the  promised  aid,  and  how  did  He  keep  His  word 
according  to  this  theory  ? 

The  different  Protestant  theories  concerning  the  commission  lead  to  irrecon  - 
cilable  contradictions. 

1.  The  theory  of  Mr.  C.,  if  I  understand  him  correctly,  makes  Christ  forfeit 
His  word  for  the  mere  purpose  of  doing  an  idle  and  vain  thing. 

2.  Those  who  insist  that  the  phrase  "  end  of  the  world  "  does  not  mean  the 
end  of  this  state,  are  forced  to  reject  the  sense  in  which  Christ  had  always  used 
it,  and  to  give  to  it  a  new  and  unheard  of  meaning,  exceedingly  unnatural  and 
awkward. 

3.  Those  who  concede  that  the  promise  extends  to  the  end  of  the  existing 


84r  THE   GOVERNING   POWER   OF   THE   CHURCH. 

But  it  may  be  contended  that  the  use  of  the  pronoun  "  you  " 
restricts  both  the  commission  and  the  promise  to  the  apostles, 
to  whom  our  Saviour  addressed  Himself  orally.  But  this  con- 
struction would  be  in  direct  conflict  with  the  promise,  if  I  have 

state  of  things,  and  that  Christ  does  keep  His  promise,  are  compelled  to  admit, 
either  that  the  aid  of  Christ  fails  to  accomplish  the  end  intended  by  Him,  or  that 
there  is  now  an  infallible  teaching  authority  in  the  church. 

The  Catholic  theory,  that  Christ  first  constituted  a  college  of  teachers,  and 
then  addressed  His  command  and  promise  to  them  in  that  capacity,  is  the  only 
one  compatible  with  the  character  of  Christ  as  a  Divine  Lawgiver ;  and  the  only 
one  commensurate  with  the  scope  and  intent  of  such  a  system. 

But  conceding  that  I  have  misunderstood  Mr.  C.,  and  that  he  only  intended 
to  maintain  that  Christ  promised  His  assistance  during  the  lives  of  the  apostles, 
the  difficulties  of  this  theory  are  about  as  great  as  those  of  the  other 

The  only  things  that  Christ  commanded  the  apostles  to  do,  (in  the  commission,) 
was  to  teach  and  baptize.  The  system  established  by  Him  was  permanent,  and, 
therefore,  required  permanent  teaching.  The  duty  of  teaching  was  continuing. 
Each  separate  individual,  in  all  coming  time,  had  to  be  taught.  Nothing  of 
faith  or  knowledge  could  be  inherited.  It  is,  then,  most  singular,  that  the  first 
teachers,  instructed  personally  by  our  Lord  Himself,  should  still  require  this  in- 
fallible assistance,  while  future  teachers,  teaching  the  same  system,  could  do 
without  it.  The  duty  to  be  performed  was  the  same ;  and  yet  assistance  is  given 
in  one  case,  and  refused  in  the  other.  The  teachers  after  the  apostolic  day  could 
not  learn  their  duty  more  fully  than  the  apostles  did  under  the  instructions  of  Christ 
This  infallible  assistance,  in  the  very  nature  of  the  system,  was  needed,  and,  there- 
fore, promised,  at  all  periods  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  the  institution. 

But  besides  this,  the  words,  "  I  am  with  you,"  occur  very  often  in  both  Tes- 
taments ;  and  in  no  case,  (so  far  as  I  am  advised,)  where  the  promise  was  per- 
sonal, were  the  words  added,  "  alway,  even  to  the  end  of  the  world."  And  the 
reason  why  they  are  not  added  in  cases  where  the  promise  was  confined  to  the 
individual  to  whom  it  was  made,  would  seem  to  be  obvious. 

If  we  take  the  theory  to  be  true,  for  the  sake  of  the  argument  only,  that  the 
promise  was  personal  to  the  apostles,  then,  all  that  Christ  need  have  said  was, 
"  Lo,  I  am  with  you."  The  command  and  promise  always  being  commensurate 
with  each  other,  this  would  have  expressed  all  the  sense  contended  for  by  Mr.  C., 
and  those  who  think  with  him.  But  is  it  not  unaccountable  that  our  Lord  should 
add  words  not  required  to  express  His  meaning,  but  also  use  them  in  a  sense 
wholly  contrary  to  the  sense  in  which  He  Himself  had  always  used  them  before  ? 
It  would  seem  that  the  very  reason  why  our  Lord  added  to  the  promise,  "I  am 
with  you"  the  words  "  alway,  even  to  the  end  of  the  world,"  was  to  qualify  the 
promise  itself  by  showing  that  it  was  not  personal,  but  continuing.  Unquestion- 
ably the  duty  of  teaching  was  not  personal  to  the  apostles.  They  were  simply 
the  first,  but  not  the  only,  teachers.  The  command  and  promise  must  exist  or 
expire  together.  They  are  inseparable. 


THE  GOVERNING  POWEK  OF  THE  CHURCH.         85 

given  the  correct  definition  of  the  phrase  "  end  of  the 
world." 

It  must  be  evident  to  the  most  casual  reader  of  the  New 
Testament,  that  the  larger  portion  of  the  instructions  given  by 
Christ  were  given  in  terms  personally  addressed  to  the  apostles 
We  read  in  the  first  chapter  of  Acts,  that  Christ  was  "seen  of 
the  apostles  forty  days,  and  speaking  of  the  things  pertaining  to 
the  kingdom  of  God."  Now  these  instructions  were  given  to 
them  personally,  so  far  as  we  can  judge  from  what  is  said.  The 
instructions  given  by  Christ,  as  recorded  in  St.  John's  Gospel, 
from  the  thirteenth  to  the  seventeenth  chapters  inclusive,  were 
given  in  terms  personal  to  the  apostles.  u  A  new  command- 
ment I  give  unto  you,  that  you  love  one  another."  At  the  last 
supper,  our  Lord,  addressing  the  apostles  in  terms  personal  to 
them,  said,  "Do  this  in  remembrance  of  me."  The  pronoun 
you  is  here  used  in  all  these  cases,  and  in  many  others,  when 
Christ  was  addressing  His  chosen  apostles  alone,  no  one  being 
present  but  them ;  and  are  these  commands  applicable  to  the 
successors  of  the  apostles,  or  not  ?  Were  succeeding  Christians 
required  to  love  one  another  ?  Were  they  required  to  "  do 
this  in  remembrance  "  of  Christ  ?  If  so,  why  are  not  those  who 
come  after  the  apostles  required  to  "  go  teach,"  as  well  as  they  ? 
Why  confine  the  meaning  in  one  case,  and  not  in  the  others  ? 
Was  there  no  need  of  teachers  after  the  apostles  ? 

The  fact  that  the  larger  portion  of  the  instructions  given  by 
our  Saviour  was  given  in  terms  personal  to  the  apostles,  is  evi- 
dent ;  and  the  fact  that  these  instructions  are  applicable  to  us, 
unless  they  are  limited,  either  by  express  words  or  by  the  na- 
ture of  the  command  itself,  is  equally  clear.  Thus,  for  instance, 
the  command  given  to  the  eleven  to  tarry  in  Jerusalem  until 
the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  does  not  apply  to  us,  for  the 
command  was  but  temporary,  and  could  not  extend  beyond  the 
event  mentioned  as  its  limitation.  It  was  not  a  general  continu- 
ing command,  but  local  and  temporary,  and  could  not  be  ful- 
filled again,  but  expired  by  its  own  limited  character. 

And  the  reason  and  truth  of  this  rule  will  be  apparent,  I  ap- 
prehend, upon  a  little  reflection.  Christ  selected  twelve  apos- 
tles to  be  with  Him  during  His  ministry.  They  saw  all  His 
miracles — heard  all  His  discourses,  which  were  mostly  given  in 


86        THE  GOVERNING  POWER  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

terms  personal  to  them,  and  received  His  last  instructions,  and 
saw  him  ascend  into  heaven.  The  last  thing  He  said  to  them 
was,  "  Go  teach,  <fec.,  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  what- 
soever I  have  commanded  you  "  [to  observe.]  He  had  instruct- 
ed them  personally  for  more  than  three  years,  and  now  He  com- 
mands them  to  teach  others  to  observe  that  which  He  had 
previously  commanded  them  to  observe.  This  commission  ajr 
plied  the  teachings  of  Christ,  given  in  terms  personal  to  the 
apostles,  also  to  their  successors.  They  were  commanded  to 
"  tarry  in  Jerusalem  until  they  were  endowed  with  power  from 
on  high."  When  so  endowed,  they  were  to  commence  teach- 
ing. The  date,  therefore,  when  the  commission  was  to  take 
effect,  was  the  day  of  Pentecost.  Whatsoever  Christ  had,  pre- 
vious to  that  day,  commanded  them  to  do,  they  were  to  teach 
others  to  observe.  Now,  on  that  day,  one  of  the  things  Christ 
had  previously  commanded  the  eleven  to  do,  was  to  "  teach  all 
things  whatsoever  he  had  commanded  them  ; "  and  this  made 
It  their  duty  to  teach  others  to  teach  what  they  had  been  them- 
selves commanded  to  teach.  In  other  words,  the  phrase  "  all 
things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you,"  would  embrace  all 
commands  given  before  the  time  when  this  command  was  to  be 
put  in  force,  and  would  include  in  the  words  "  all  things  what- 
soever "  the  command  "  Go  teach." 

The  phrase  "  all  things  whatsoever  "  is  exceedingly  general, 
and  would  include  all  commands.  But  according  to  the  fifth 
rule  of  construction  I  have  given,  a  general  rule  may  be  limited 
by  a  special  clause.  And  it  is  upon  this  ground  that  I  lay  it 
down  as  a  principle  of  construction,  that  all  commands  given  by 
Christ  in  terms  personal  to  the  apostles,  descend  to,  and  are 
obligatory  upon  us,  unless  they  are  limited  by  express  words, 
or  by  the  temporary  nature  of  the  command  itself.  Unless  the 
general  clause  "all  things  whatsoever"  be  limited  by  some 
other  clause,  or  by  the  nature  of  the  command  itself,  its  mean- 
ing remains  unrestricted  ;  and  "  all  things  whatsoever  "  Christ 
commanded  His  apostles  to  observe  or  do,  are  obligatory  upon 
Christians  in  all  ages.  And  the  limitations  upon  the  general 
clause  will  not  restrict  it  only  in  so  far  as  may  be  required  by 
these  exceptions  or  limitations,  leaving  the  remainder  of  the 
slause  to  have  its  full  effect. 


THE  GOVERNING  POWER  OF  THE  CHURCH.        87 

But  these  commands  are  only  obligatory  upon  future  Chris- 
ti.ins  in  the  proper  capacity  ;  namely :  If  Christ  commanded  the 
eleven,  in  their  capacity  as  teachers,  to  teach,  then  the  same 
duty  would  devolve  upon  their  successors  in  the  office  of  teacher, 
and  upon  them  only.  If  He  commanded  them,  as  individuals, 
to  love  one  another,  then  this  command  would  be  obligatory 
upon  all  Christians,  in  all  ages.  If  He  commanded  them,  as  in- 
dividuals, to  eat  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  as  ministers,  to  admin, 
ister  it  to  others,  then  their  successors  in  these  two  different 
capacities  must  obey  the  command,  "  Do  this  in  remembrance 
of  me." 

Whenever  associated  men  are  divided,  as  they  must  be,  into 
different  orders,  and  the  distinctions  of  those  different  classes 
first  separately  and  specifically  pointed  out,  then  any  general 
direction  must,  by  every  rule  of  construction,  be  applied  to  each 
in  his  proper  position.  As  a  lawgiver,  our  Lord  would  consist- 
ently begin  with  the  first  and  simplest  elements  of  His  system. 
And  as  all  Christians,  both  lay  and  clerical,  are  still  individual 
members  of  the  church,  and  bound,  as  such,  to  discharge  all 
the  duties  of  that  capacity,  our  Lord  would  first  teach  His 
apostles  their  duties  as  simple  Christians,  and  afterwards  their 
duties  as  officers.  And  He  would  logically  give  them  the  com- 
mission in  the  close  of  His  ministry,  and  in  terms  sufficiently 
general  to  include  all  that  had  been  embodied  in  His  permanent 
code. 

It  is  a  rule,  that  instructions  from  a  superior  to  an  inferior, 
acting  in  a  certain  capacity,  are  necessarily  confined  to  him  in 
that  capacity,  unless  there  be  some  express  statement  to  the 
contrary.  For  example :  I  may  act  in  several  different  capaci- 
ties, under  several  different  superiors,  or  under  one  superior, 
Who  has  the  rightful  supervision  of  different  inferiors,  acting  in 
different  capacities.  I  may  be  agent  for  A.  B.,  and  also  for  C. 
D.,  having  the  power  to  appoint  sub-agents  under  me  in  both 
cases.  We  will  suppose  that  I  appoint  E.  F.  sub-agent  for  both 
these  parties,  and  that  I  write  him  letters  of  instruction  in  both 
cases.  In  the  first  case  I  address  my  letter  to  him  in  this  way : 
"Mr.  E.  F.,  Sub-Agent  of  A.  B. : 

"  You  will,"  <fcc.,  giving  him  instructions,  without  again 
mentioning  the  name  of  A.  B.  In  the  same  way  I  address  him 


88        TEE  GOVERNING  POWER  OF  THE  CHUECH. 

as  the  sub-agent  of  C.  D.,  and  give  him  my  instructions  accord- 
ingly. Now,  it  would  be  a  violation  of  all  rule  and  of  all  usage 
for  E.  F.  to  do  for  A.  B.  what  I  had  instructed  him  to  do  for 
C.  D.  Having  addressed  him  in  a  certain  capacity,  my  instruc- 
tions are  confined  to  that  capacity.  And  so  it  is  with  persons 
filling  official  positions.  One  man  may  fill  several  offices,  where 
the  duties  are  not  incompatible  with  each  other,  and  the  same 
superior  officer  may  supervise  the  inferior  in  all  these  different 
capacities ;  and,  in  giving  him  instructions,  would  address  him 
at  the  beginning  in  the  capacity  for  which  the  instructions  are 
intended.  So  it  is  in  the  commission.  Christ  addressed  the 
eleven  in  their  capacity  as  teachers.  He  first  constitutes  them 
such,  and  then  the  instructions  and  promise  are  applied  to  them 
in  that  capacity  only. 

But  there  is  another  sufficient  reason  why  the  use  of  the 
pronoun  "  you,"  in  the  commission,  could  not  restrict  the  corn 
mand  and  promise  to  the  eleven  apostles.  Let  us  assume,  for 
the  sake  of  the  argument  only,  that  our  Lord,  in  the  commis- 
sion, created,  for  the  first  time,  a  body  or  college  of  teachers, 
having  perpetual  succession ;  and  that  He  addressed  them  in 
their  collective  capacity  as  teachers.  Then,  it  is  clear  that  the 
use  of  the  personal  pronoun  would  have  been  proper  in  that 
case.  And  we  find  such  to  be  the  usage  of  Scripture,  as  well  as 
at  law,  and  in  common  practice. 

In  the  first  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  chapter  fifteen,  verse 
fifty-two,  St.  Paul,  speaking  of  those  Christians  who  are  to  be 
living  at  the  end  of  the  world,  says :  "  We  shall  be  changed." 
He  says  the  same  thing,  in  substance,  in  the  fourth  chapter  of 
his  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians.  The  pronoun  we  is  here  ap- 
plied to  those  Christians  who  shall  live  many  ages  after  the 
writer,  although  the  pronoun  is  in  the  first  person.  But  all 
Christians,  in  all  ages,  in  the  contemplation  of  the  theory  of  St. 
Paul,  constituted  but  one  collective  body  or  corporation,  always 
existing,  and  always  present,  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of 
the  Christian  era,  and  the  use  of  the  pronoun  personal  was 
strictly  proper.  So,  when  he  says,  "till  we  all  come  in  the 
unity  of  the  faith,"  he  includes  all  the  Christians  of  the  future 
as  well  as  of  the  then  present  time.  In  the  same  way,  and  for 
the  same  reason,  when  Christ  constituted  a  perpetual  college  of 


THE  GOVERNING  POWER  OF  THE  CHURCH.        89 

teachers,  in  the  contemplation  of  His  theory,  this  college  was 
then  present,  and  would  continue  to  be  to  the  end  of  time,  and 
the  use  of  the  pronoun  was  strictly  proper,  and  His  promised 
assistance  to  the  end  of  the  world  was  in  just  accordance  with 
it.  When  instructions  are  given  to  the  proper  organs  of  an  arti- 
ficial being,  they  are  given  to  the  being  itself,  through  its  or- 
gans,  and  are  applicable  at  all  times,  unless  expressly  limited  in 
words,  or  by  their  temporary  character.* 

It  would  then  seem  plain,  that  if  Christ  intended  to  limit  the 
commission  to  the  apostles,  He  could  appropriately  use  the  pro- 
noun you  ;  and  that,  on  the  contrary,  if  He  constituted  them  a 
college  of  teachers,  having  perpetual  succession,  He  could  have 
used  the  same  pronoun  with  the  same  propriety  ;  so  that  the  use 
of  this  pronoun  is  entirely  compatible  with  either  view.  But  it 
is  not  so  with  the  phrase  "  end  of  the  world,"  which  could  not 
be  used  in  the  sense  required  to  limit  the  promise  to  the  apostles 
themselves,  for  the  reasons  already  given. 

§  11.  The  persons  appointed  by  the  apostles  exercised  the  pow 
ers  conferred  by  the  commission. 

But  there  is  another  mode  of  deciding  the  question,  whether 
this  commission  extends  to  the  successors  of  the  apostles  or  not. 
When  we  see  how  the  apostles  put  the  system  into  practical 
operation,  we  may  be  able  to  arrive  at  a  correct  conclusion. 

*  But  if  we  once  admit  that  the  promise  extended  beyond  the  apostles,  then 
we  are  forced  to  concede  that  the  form  of  expression  used  can  only  he  compati- 
ble with  the  fact  that  our  Lord  first  constituted  them  a  college  of  teachers,  and 
then  addressed  them  as  such.  The  pronoun  personal  can  only  be  applied  to  per- 
sons real  or  artificial.  You  may  well  address  the  organs  or  members  of  a  cor- 
poration as  you  would  the  corporation  itself.  You  may  also  address  a  permanent 
college  of  teachers  as  a  person  destined  to  live  throughout  all  coming  time.  This 
is  what  our  Lord  did.  He  first  created  the  college  by  addressing  all  the  apostles 
collectively,  and  imposing  upon  them  duties  which  only  the  whole  combined  could 
perform.  They  were  to  teach  all  nations  all  things  which  He  had  commanded. 
For  our  Lord  to  say  that  He  would  always  be  with  them  to  the  end  of  the  world, 
and  yet  they  not  be  members  of  a  continuing  college  of  teachers,  destined  to  livo 
us  long  as  the  promise  itself  was  to  continue,  would  seem  to  be  entirely  errone- 
oua  As  the  promise  itself  was  continuing,  and  yet  the  pronoun  personal  was 
used,  there  must  have  been  a  college  of  teachers  then  organized,  the  apostlei 
being  the  first  members  of  the  college. 


90        THE  GOVERNING  POWER  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

Now  if  Christ  intended  by  this  commission  to  create  a  certain 
office,  having  attached  to  it  certain  powers  and  duties,  and 
this  office  was  to  continue  while  the  church  should  exist,  the 
question  of  succession  is  very  simple  and  plain. 

Now  what  powers  did  Christ  bestow  upon  the  apostles  by 
the  commission  ?  What  powers  did  He  give  to  them  in  their 
capacity,  as  teachers  f  The  power  to  "  teach  all  things  what- 
soever I  have  commanded  you,"  and  the  power  to  baptize. 
Now  what  incidents  does  the  power  to  teach  necessarily  in- 
clude ? 

1.  The  right  to  decide  what  construction  they  would  give  the 
law — in  other  words,  what  the  law  required,  as  of  faith,  and 
practice. 

2.  The  duty  of  those  taught  to  obey.     "  He  that  believeth 
not  shall  be  damned.'1'' 

3.  The  right  to  reject  heretics. 

These  incidents  are  inseparable  from  the  power  to  teach. 
There  would  seem  to  be  no  question  upon  that  point.  Now  if 
we  find  that  those  who  succeeded  the  apostles — those  whom  the 
apostles  appointed  to  govern  the  church — exercised  the  same 
powers  necessarily  included  in  this  commission,  is  it  not  clear, 
that  this  commission  was  intended  to  extend  to  the  successors 
of  the  apostles  f  What  result  could  possibly  be  more  plain  and 
palpable  than  this  ?  It  ought  to  be  remembered  that  the  power 
belongs  to  the  office,  and  not  to  the  man — that  the  man  must 
die,  the  office  not — that  all  officers,  as  such,  act  only  from  mere 
delegated  authority,  and  not  of  themselves — they  are  but  agents 
— and  agency  ceases  with  death. 

Now  what  powers  did  those  exercise,  who  succeeded  the 
apostles  in  the  government  of  the  church  ? 

We  hear  St.  Paul  say  to  the  Hebrews — 

"  Remember  them  which  have  the  rule  over  you,  who  have 
spoken  unto  you  the  word  of  God  :  whose  faith  follow,  consider- 
ing the  end  of  their  conversation." 

"  Be  not  carried  about  with  divers  and  strange  doctrines." 

"  Obey  them  that  have  the  rule  over  you  and  submit  your- 
selves ;  for  they  watch  for  your  souls,  as  they  that  must  give 
account."  (Heb.  xiii.  7,  9,  17.) 

Now  from  these  passages  it  is  plain  that  there  were  certain 


THE  GOVERNING  POWER  OF  THE  CHURCH.        91 

persons  who  had  the  rule  or  government  over  the  Hebrews — 
that  these  persons  were  they  that  had  spoken  unto  them  the 
word  of  God  ;  that  is,  those  persons  who  had  obeyed  the  com- 
mand "  Go  teach  " — and  whose  faith  the  Hebrews  were  com- 
manded to  "follow  "  that  they  might  not  be  "  carried  about 
with  divers  and  strange  doctrines."  And  again  the  Hebrews  are 
told  to  "  obey  them  that  have  the  rule  over  you,  and  submit 
yourselves." 

Those  persons  that  had  the  rule  over  the  Hebrews,  certainly 
did  exercise  all  the  powers  given  in  the  commission.  They  had 
the  right  to  teach,  and  when  they  taught,  the  Hebrews  were 
commanded  to  follow  their  faith  /  and  if  they  did  not  follow 
the  faith  of  those  teachers,  these  rulers  must  have  had  the  neces- 
sary power  to  reject ;  for  if  they  had  no  power  to  enforce  their 
teachings  upon  the  members  taught,  they  could  have  had  no 
rule  over  the  Hebrews  at  all. 

When  Christ  commanded  the  apostles  to  "  Go  teach,"  He 
added,  "  he  that  believeth,"  <fcc.,  "  he  that  believeth  not,"  &c. 
The  persons  taught  were  required  to  believe  their  teachers. 
So,  when  St.  Paul  tells  the  Hebrews  to  "  obey  them  that  have 
the  rule  over  you  and  submit  yourselves,"  he  also  tells  them  to 
"  follow  their  faith."  How  very  similar  is  the  command  in  the 
commission  to  "  believe "  and  in  the  Epistle  to  "  follow  the 
faith."  The  hearers  in  both  cases  are  substantially  commanded 
to  do  the  same  thing.  Now  were  not  those  who  were  to  be 
believed  in  each  case,  invested  with  the  same  authority  to  teach 
that  which  was  equally  required  to  be  believed  by  the  persons 
taught  ?  It  would  certainly  seem  so. 

The  apostle,  in  these  extracts,  certainly  speaks  of  others  be- 
sides the  apostles,  to  whom  the  commission  was  first  given. 
The  language  is  too  general  to  admit  of  any  other  construc- 
tion ;  nor  can  we  suppose  the  apostle  would  find  it  necessary  to 
command  the  Hebrews  to  obey  the  other  apostles. 

But  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  to  his  two  sons  in  the  faith,  Tim- 
othy and  Titus,  are  still  more  explicit.  The  passages  have  been 
already  quoted.  Only  such  will  be  repeated  in  this  connection 
as  are  esteemed  most  pointed. 

The  apostle,  after  stating  that  he  had  left  Timothy  at  Ephe- 
sus  to  "  charge  some  that  they  teach  no  other  doctrine,"  com- 


92        THE  GOVERNING  POWER  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

pares  the  rule  of  a  bishop  over  the  church  to  the  rule  of  a  parent 
over  "  his  house,  having  his  children  in  subjection  ;  "  and,  after 
mentioning  many  things  as  true,  he  says  to  Timothy  :  "  These 
things  [do  you\  command  and  teach."  Is  not  this  as  strong 
language  as  that  used  in  the  commission  "  Go  teach"  ?  Christ 
had  first  taught  His  disciples  certain  truths,  as  St.  Paul  had 
taught  Timothy ;  and  then  both  gave  command  to  teach  to 
others  the  same  things  taught  to  them,  and  the  things  taught  in 
both  cases  were  the  same.  And  in  his  capacity,  as  a  teacher, 
Timothy  was  not  only  to  teach  the  things  mentioned  in  the 
verses  preceding  the  one  containing  this  command,  but  he  was 
to  teach  the  entire  system  of  Christianity,  as  is  shown  by  the 
general  drift  of  the  two  Epistles  to  him,  but  especially  by  the 
fourteenth  and  succeeding  verses  of  the  third  chapter  of  the  sec- 
ond Epistle,  wherein  the  apostle  speaks  of  the  truths  taught 
orally,  and  those  found  in  Scripture  ;  so  that  Timothy,  as  a 
teacher,  carried  out  the  command  "  Go  teach,"  as  well  as  the 
command  of  St.  Paul,  "  these  things  command  and  teach." 

The  apostle,  after  stating  that  "  there  are  many  unruly*  and 
vain  talkers  and  deceivers,"  commands  Titus  to  "  rebuke  them 
sharply,  that  they  may  be  sound  in  the  faith."  He  further  com- 
mands Titus :  "  These  things  speak  and  exhort,  and  rebuke  with 
all  authority.  Let  no  man  despise  thee."f  "  A  man  that  is  a 

*  What  does  this  term  unruly  mean  ?  Webster  says  it  means  "  ungoverna- 
ble; licentious;  disregarding  restraint,  turbulent." 

f  That  large  body  of  Protestant  ministers  who  claimed  the  right  to  rebuke 
Congress  for  passing  the  Nebraska  bill  a  few  years  ago,  adopted  this,  among 
other  resolutions : 

"  1.  Resolved,  That  the  ministry  is  the  divinely-appointed  institution  for  the 
declaration  and  enforcement  of  God's  will  upon  all  points  of  religious  and  moral 
truth ;  and  that  as  such,  it  is  their  duty  to  reprove,  rebuke,  and  exhort  with  all 
authority  and  doctrine." 

The  language  of  this  resolution  is  certainly  very  clear  and  strong.  The  min- 
istry is  not  only  the  "divinely-appointed  institution  for  the  declaration  and  enforce- 
ment of  God's  will,"  but  it  is  "  their  duty  to  reprove,  rebuke,  and  exhort  with  all 
authority  and  doctrine"  Of  course,  if  it  be  their  duty  to  declare  and  enforce 
God's  will,  and  with  all  authority,  it  would  seem  to  be  some  one's  bounden  duty  to 
obey  ;  and  that  some  means  must  exist  for  practically  enforcing  their  decisions, 
otherwise  the  power  to  declare  and  enforce  amounts,  at  last,  to  no  power  at  all, 
txcept  in  mere  name.  How  the  powers  claimed  by  these  ministers  can  be  rec- 
onciled with  the  assumed  right  of  private  interpretation  in  the  last  resort,  it  is 


THE  GOVERNING  POWER  OF  THE  CHDRCH.         93 

heretic,  after  the  first  and  second  admonition  [do  you]  reject." 
Here  was  the  most  explicit  authority  given  to  Titus  to  do  cer- 
tain things  in  the  church,  and  with  all  authority.  The  persons 
mentioned  as  unruly,  and  vain  talkers  and  deceivers,  were  here- 
tics, because  not  "  sound  in  the  faith  ;  "  and  as  to  these  Titus 
was  first  to  rebuke  and  exhort  with  all  authority,  and  if  these 
rebukes  did  not  have  the  proper  effect,  he  was  to  reject  the 
heretic.  Unless  he  had  the  power  to  reject  or  expel  the  here- 
tic— the  vain  talker  and  deceiver — from  the  church,  the  right 
to  rebuke  would  have  been  wholly  idle,  because  the  evil  would 
have  still  remained  in  the  Church,  without  any  efficient  remedy. 

These  directions  were  given  to  Titus  as  a  minister.  He  him- 
self was  first  to  determine  who  were  the  "  unruly  and  vain 
talkers  and  deceivers ; "  he  was  then  to  "  exhort  and  rebuke 
them  sharply  ;  "  but  if  they  persisted,  he  was  to  reject  them  as 
heretics.  Titus  was  to  decide  the  question  whether  certain 
opinions  were  heretical.  This  being  his  right,  it  was  the  corre- 
sponding duty  of  the  persons  rebuked  and  admonished,  to  obey 
him  who  had  the  rule  over  them,  and  to  submit  themselves. 

Now  compare  the  powers  exercised  by  Timothy  and  Titus 
with  those  given  in  the  commission,  and  are  they  not  the  same  ? 

most  difficult  to  conceive,  unless  we  hold,  in  plain  contradiction  to  the  powers 
claimed,  that  this  divinely-appointed  institution  is,  after  all,  absolutely  inferior 
to  the  very  persons  reproved,  and  in  reference  to  the  very  things  for  which  the 
reprorf  was  given. 

The  theory  of  these  Divines  is  strangely  mixed.  God  creates  an  institution 
for  the  very  purpose  of  declaring  and  enforcing  His  will ;  and  yet,  in  the  contem- 
plation of  this  same  theory,  God  has  done  a  very  idle  and  useless  thing,  for  each 
member  rebuked  has  only  to  appeal  to  himself  to  defeat  the  assumed  judgment 
of  this  "divinely-appointed"  yet  fallible  institution.  As  the  decision,  in  the  con- 
templation of  the  theory  itself,  is  as  fallible  as  the  judgment  of  the  person  re- 
buked, it  cannot,  of  course,  ask  or  demand  any  respect  or  obedience  while  the 
institution  is  arbitrarily  and  painfully  compelled,  by  duty,  to  assume  and  exer- 
cise this  frivolous  authority. 

But  these  ministers  not  only  claim  the  right  thus  to  rebuke  the  members  of 
their  own  churches,  but  they  go  beyond  the  Catholic  theory,  and  claim  this  right 
OYer  aliens  and  strangers.  St.  Paul's  directions  to  Timothy  and  Titus  had  refer- 
ence to  the  members  of  the  Church,  and  not  to  aliens  from  the  kingdom,  over 
whom  the  Church  had  no  jurisdiction  to  do  any  thing  more  than  simply  to  de- 
clare the  truth,  not  to  enforce  it,  and  who  would  perish  because  they  were  out 
of  the  Church,  as  the  people  perished  because  they  were  out  of  the  ark. 


9-1        THE  GOVERNING-  POWER  OF  THE  CHUKCH. 

Were  not  they  but  carrying  out  the  commission  ?  From  whom 
did  they  receive  their  powers,  and  by  what  means  ?  God,  the 
Father,  constitutes  the  original  fountain  from  which  this  stream 
of  authority  flows.  Christ  says  to  his  apostles  :  "  As  my  Fa- 
ther hath  sent  me,  so  send  I  you."  "  He  that  receiveth  whom- 
soever I  send,  receiveth  me  ;  and  he  that  receiveth  me,  receiv- 
eth him  that  sent  me."  St.  Paul  received  his  authority  from 
Christ,  and  Timothy  and  Titus  received  their  authority  from 
St.  Paul. 

§  12.  The  same  subject  continued. 

After  giving  Timothy  a  description  of  the  qualifications  of 
certain  officers  in  his  first  Epistle,  St.  Paul,  in  the  second,  goes 
on  to  say : 

"  Wherefore  I  put  thee  in  remembrance,  that  thou  stir  up 
the  gift  of  God,  which  is  in  thee  by  the  putting  on  of  my 
hands." 

"  That  good  thing  which  was  committed  unto  thee,  keep  by 
the  Holy  Ghost,  which  dwelleth  in  us." 

"  And  the  things  that  thou  hast  heard  of  me  among  many 
witnesses,  the  same  commit  thou  to  faithful  men,  who  shall  be 
able  to  teach  others  also."  (2  Tim.  i.  6,  13,  14  ;  ii.  2.) 

To  Titus  the  apostle  says  : 

"  For  this  cause  left  I  thee  in  Crete,  that  thou  shouldest  set 
in  order  the  things  that  are  wanting,  and  ordain  elders  in  every 
city,  as  I  had  appointed  thee."  (Titus  i.  5,  7,  9.) 

The  apostle  also  speaks  of  "  a  bishop  "  as  the  "  steward  of 
God,"  "  holding  fast  the  faithful  word  as  he  hath  been  taught, 
that  he  may  be  able  by  sound  doctrine  both  to  exhort  and  con 
vince  the  gainsay ers." 

The  "  gift "  mentioned  in  the  first  passage  is  the  "  good 
thing  "  stated  in  the  second  ;  and  the  "  good  thing  committed  " 
to  Timothy  is  the  same  which  Timothy  is  commanded  to  "  com- 
mit to  faithful  men,  who  shall  be  able  to  teach  others  also  ;  " 
and  these  things  committed  by  St.  Paul  to  Timothy,  and  di- 
rected by  him  to  be  committed  by  Timothy  to  others,  were  the 
power  to  teach,  and  the  things  to  be  taught,  contemplated  in 
the  commission  ;  for  we  find  that  Timothy  was  only  to  commit 
the  same  things  he  had  heard  of  Paul  to  "faithful  men,"  &c., 


THE  GOVERNING  POWER  OF  THE  CHURCH.         95 

and  that  Titus  was  commanded  to  "  ordain  elders  in  every  city." 
It  appears  also  that  bishops  were  "  as  the  stewards  of  God," 
whose  duty  it  was  to  teach  others  what  they  had  themselves 
been  taught. 

If  we  keep  constantly  in  view  the  powers  exercised  by  Tim- 
othy and  Titus,  that  they  had  received  them  by  the  ordination 
of  St.  Paul,  that  they  were  directed,  the  one  to  "  commit  to 
faithful  men,"  and  the  other  to  "  ordain  elders,"  (which  means 
the  same  thing,)  we  can  most  readily  understand  how  the  power 
passed  down  from  the  one  to  the  other  by  succession.  The 
same  things  that  Timothy  had  heard  of  St.  Paul,  he,  in  turn,  was 
to  commit  to  "faithful  men,"  who  were  also  to  teach  the  "same 
things." 

Could  the  commission,  "  Go  teach  all  nations,"  be  more 
beautifully  and  faithfully  carried  out  ?  Here  was  a  perfect  sys- 
tem, and  perfect  order.  Here  we  have  four  links  in  the  chain 
of  succession,  and  as  all  the  links  in  the  same  perfect  chain  must 
possess  the  same  power,  it  is  all  that  can  be  required.  From 
God  to  Christ,  from  Christ  to  St.  Paul,  from  St.  Paul  to  Tim- 
othy and  Titus,  and  from  them  to  others,  to  whom  they  were  to 
commit  the  same  things.  As,  in  every  treatise  upon  arithmetic, 
we  have  the  rule  first  given  in  words,  and  then  a  few  examples 
of  the  application  of  the  rule  in  practice,  and  we  are  then  left  to 
apply  the  principle  to  other  questions,  so  it  is  here.  The  gen- 
eral principle  is  given  by  Christ  in  the  commission,  a  few  exam- 
ples in  practice  are  given  in  the  cases  of  Timothy  and  Titus,  and 
those  they  were  commanded  to  ordain,  and  we  are  then  left  to 
apply  the  general  principle  to  other  cases. 

In  the  tenth  chapter  of  St.  John's  Gospel,  our  Lord  spoke 
the  parable  of  the  Sheepfold,  in  which  the  door  and  the  shej  - 
herd  represent  Himself,  and  the  sheep  His  followers.  In  speak- 
ing  of  the  relation  which  the  elders  bore  to  the  churches  over 
which  they  respectively  had  the  rule,  the  apostles  Paul  and 
Peter  apply  the  comparison  of  an  under-shepherd  over  the  flock. 
Thus  St.  Paul,  addressing  the  elders  of  the  church  at  Ephesus, 
in  their  capacity  as  such,  said  to  them : 

"  Take  heed  therefore  unto  yourselves,  and  to  all  the  flock 
over  which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you  overseers,  to  feed 
the  church  of  God,"  <fec.  (Acts  xx.  28.)  The  apostle  also  speaks 


96        THE  GOVERNING,  POWER  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

of  wolves  not  sparing  the  flock.  The  word  overseer  is  defined 
to  be  "  a  supervisor — superintendent ;  "  and  superintending  is 
defined  as  "  care  and  oversight  for  the  purpose  of  direction,  and 
with  authority  to  direct."  (Webster.)  A  mere  spectator  or 
looker-on  is  not  an  overseer,  nor  is  a  mere  equal,  who  inculcates 
his  views  by  argument  alone.* 

In  this  extract  the  Church  is  called  the  flock,  and  the  elders 
are  commanded  to  feed  the  church.  Although  these  elders  are 
here  called  overseers,  those  they  superintended  were  called  "the 
flock  ;  "  and  the  duties  these  elders  were  to  perform  were  com- 
pared to  the  feeding  of  a  flock. 

In  the  fifth  chapter  of  the  first  Epistle  of  St.  Peter,  he  ex- 
horts the  elders  to  "  feed  the  flock  of  God  which  is  among  you, 
taking  the  oversight  thereof,  *  *  *  *  and  when  the 
chief  shepherd  shall  appear,  ye  shall  receive  a  crown  of  glory 
that  fadeth  not  away." 

In  this  extract  from  St.  Peter,  the  same  idea  is  conveyed, 
but  more  explicitly.  Christ  is  here  called  the  "  chief  shepherd," 
and  the  church  "  the  flock  of  God ;  "  and  the  relation  that  the 
elders  bore  to  the  flock  and  to  Christ,  was  that  of  under-shep- 
herds. 

Now  what  relation  exists  between  the  shepherd  and  the 
flock,  as  shown  in  the  parable  ?  The  shepherd  was  to  call  His 
sheep,  to  feed  them,  or  lead  them  out  to  pasture ;  to  protect 
them  from  wolves,  and  to  lay  down  His  life  for  the  sheep ;  and 
the  sheep  were  to  know  the  shepherd,  to  hear  His  voice,  and  to 
"  follow  Him."  An  under-shepherd  is  simply  a  shepherd  subject 
to  the  "  chief  shepherd,"  acting  for  Him,  and  discharging  the 
same  duties,  but  in  a  subordinate  capacity ;  and  as  the  under- 
shepherd  is  only  exercising  authority  delegated  by  the  Chief 
shepherd,  and  does  not  act  in  his  own  right,  the  sheep  are  to 
"  hear  his  voice,"  and  also  to  "  follow  him,"  for  "  he  that  hear- 
eth  you  heareth  me,"  says  Christ. 

Now,  if  these  elders  of  the  ancient  church,  as  well  as  the 
apostles,  bore  the  relation  of  under-shepherds  to  Christ  and  the 

*  Though  the  language  of  St.  Paul,  as  translated,  seems  to  confuse  the  figure, 
as  he  is  made  to  speak  of  "feeding  the  church"  by  "  overseers,"  his  meaning  is 
still  clear.  The  elders  addressed  had  the  rule  over  the  church  at  Ephesus,  and  ii 
was  their  duty  to  exercise  it. 


THE  GOVERNING  POWER  OF  THE  CHURCH.        97" 

flock,  then  it  would  seem  clear  that  they  equally  derived  their 
authority  from  Him ;  and  that,  therefore,  the  laity  were  bound 
to  know  them,  to  hear  their  voice,  and  to  follow  them.  And 
hence  we  hear  Christ  say  :  "  Hear  the  church,"  which,  being  a 
corporation,  can  only  speak  through  its  proper  organs — these 
under-shepherds.  And  so  also  we  hear  St.  Paul  say,  not  to  aliens, 
but  to  his  brethren,  "know,"  "  obey,"  " submit  to,"  and  "follow 
the  faith  "  of  "them  who  have  the  rule  over  you,  who  have  spoken 
unto  you  the  word  of  God,"  "  who  are  over  you  in  the  Lord,  and 
admonish  you."  Christ  says  in  substance :  "  My  sheep  know 
me,  hear  my  voice,  and  follow  me ; "  and  St.  Paul  says  to  his 
brethren  in  substance :  "  Know  your  under-shepherds,  obey 
them,  and  follow  their  faith."  How  similar  is  the  language  in 
the  two  cases,  showing  that  there  is  the  same  train  of  authority 
and  relationship  running  through  both. 

It  is  true,  that  the  under-shepherds  do  not  possess  all  the 
power  and  authority  of  Christ.  He  was  the  door,  as  well  as  th' 
shepherd.  He  exercised  the  legislative  power,  and  only  left  tc 
them  that  power  which  still  remains  to  be  exercised,  so  long  as 
the  flock  remains  to  be  fed. 

§  13.   Objections  considered. 

I  will  now  proceed  to  examine  certain  texts  which  may  at 
first  seem  to  conflict  with  the  view  taken  in  the  preceding  sec- 
tions. 

1.  "  Submitting  yourselves  one  to  another  in  the  fear  of 
God."     (Eph.  v.  21.) 

2.  "  The  elders  which  are  among  you  I  exhort     *     *     *     * 
feed  the  flock  of  God,  which  is  among  you,  taking  the  oversight 
thereof,  not  by  constraint,  but  willingly ;  not  for  filthy  lucre, 
but  of  a  ready  mind ;  neither  as  being  lords  over  God's  heri- 
tage, but  being  ensamples  to  the  flock." 

3.  "  Likewise,  ye  younger,  submit  yourselves  unto  the  elder. 
Yea  all  of  you  be  subject  to  one  another,  and  be  clothed  with 
humility."     (1  Peter  v.  1-5.) 

4.  "  Who  art  thou  that  judgest  another  man's  servant  ?  to 
his  own  master  he  standeth  or  falleth."     (Rom.  xiv.  4.)  * 

*  In  reading  the  Epistles  of  the  apostles  one  cannot  but  be  struck  with  the 
kiudness  of  the  form  and  manner  of  their  instructions,  even  when  giving  the  most 


98        THE  GOVERNING  POWER  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

In  reference  to  the  first  and  third  extracts  I  will  remark 
that,  in  the  places  where  these  passages  occur,  the  manner  in 
which  we  are  required  to  submit  to  each  other,  is  not  fully 
pointed  out.  We  must,  therefore,  look  to  other  portions  of  the 
Scripture  to  see  whether  the  manner  in  which  these  general 
clauses  are  to  be  put  into  practical  effect,  is  specially  stated. 
Keeping  in  our  view  the  first,  fourth,  and  fifth  rules  of  con- 
struction, I  think  it  will  be  easy  to  find  the  true  meaning  of  the 
apostles.  Both  the  apostles  tell  wives  to  submit  to  their  hus- 
bands, servants  to  their  master,  and  Paul  tells  children  to  obey 
their  parents,  and  his  lay  brethren  to  obey,  submit  to,  and  fol- 
low the  faith  of  those  who  had  the  rule  over  them.  Paul  also 
tells  his  brethren  who  are  strong,  to  indulge  the  weak  brethren 
in  reference  to  meats,  and  keeping  certain  days  which  were 
matters  indifferent.  Now  did  these  apostles,  or  either  of  them, 
mean  to  say  that  husbands,  masters,  parents,  and  those  who  had 
the  rule  over  the  Church,  were,  in  their  turn,  to  submit  to  their 
wives,  servants,  children,  and  "  the  flock  "  ?  And  that  this  sub- 
mission should  be  in  reference  to  the  same  matters  regarding 
which  those  wives,  servants,  children,  and  lay  brethren  were 
themselves  specially  charged  to  submit  to,  and  obey,  others  re- 
spectively  ?  Did  Paul  mean  to  say,  husbands  submit  to  your 
wives,  and  wives  to  your  husbands  ?  Did  he  mean  to  say  to 
his  Hebrew  brethren,  obey  and  follow  the  faith  of  them  that 
have  the  rule  over  you  and  submit  yourselves,  and  they,  in  turn, 
shall  obey  you  and  follow  your  faith,  and  you,  in  that  same  re- 
spect, shall  have  the  rule  over  your  rulers  ?  In  other  words, 
were  the  higher  official  orders  required  to  submit  to  the  lower, 
and  in  those  very  respects  which  constituted  the  difference  in 

positive  and  inflexible  commands.  St.  Paul  says :  "  I  beseech  you  brethren  that 
you  all  speak  the  same  thing" — "  that  you  submit  yourselves  to  such."  (1  Cor. 
i.  10,  xvi.  16.)  "  Rebuke  not  an  elder,  but  entreat  him  as  a  brother."  (1  Tim. 
v.  1.)  The  under-shepherds  were  taught  to  use  the  same  gentleness  towards 
all  men,  but  especially  towards  the  flock.  "  The  servant  of  the  Lord  must  not 
strive;  but  be  gentle,"  &c.  (1  Tim  ii.  24.)  But  while  as  to  the  mere  manner 
of  teaching,  they  were  to  be  as  gentle  as  their  Divine  Master,  they  possessed  act- 
ual authority  as  He  did,  and  were  told  to  command  and  teach  with  all  authority, 
to  rebuke  sharply,  to  reject  heretics,  to  withdraw  from  perverse  teachers,  and  to 
let  no  man  despise  them  in  the  exercise  of  their  authority. 


THE  GOVERNING  TOWER  OF  THE  CHURCH.        99 

the  orders  themselves  ?  If  A  be  required  to  follow  the  faith  of 
B,  and  B  to  follow  the  faith  of  A,  then,  in  so  far  as  they  differ, 
it  would  be  a  mere  exchange  of  faith.  This  could  not  have  been 
the  meaning  of  the  apostles. 

These  extracts  are  what  are  properly  termed  general  clauses, 
and  are  subject  to  be  limited  and  applied  by  more  specific  and 
special  provisions.  When  therefore  Paul  tells  wives  to  submit 
to  their  husbands,  children  to  their  parents,  servants  to  their 
masters,  the  strong  to  the  weak  brother,  and  the  lay  members 
to  those  who  have  the  rule  over  them,  these  specific  and  special 
directions,  by  every  rule  of  construction,  must  have  their  full 
force  and  application  ;  as  they  but  point  out  in  detail,  and  with 
more  minute  accuracy,  how,  and  in  what  manner,  and  in  refer- 
ence to  what  matters,  we  are  to  submit  to  one  another.  In  this 
way  we  can  give  force  and  effect  to  all  the  texts  without  any 
conflict.  If,  on  the  contrary,  we  say  that  a  superior  order  in 
the  church  was  as  much  required  to  obey  as  an  inferior,  then  we 
annihilate  all  rule  over  the  church  whatever.  The  specific  and 
special  commands  of  St.  Paul  to  obey,  submit  to,  and  follow  the 
faith  of  those  who  had  the  rule  over  the  church,  would  be  en- 
tirely abrogated,  by  these  merely  general  clauses. 

The  second  extract  was  addressed  by  St.  Peter  to  the  elders 
as  such,  and  points  out,  not  only  what  they  were  to  do,  but  also 
the  manner  of  doing  it.  They  were  to  "  feed  the  flock,  taking 
the  oversight  thereof,"  and  this  they  were  to  do,  "  not  by  con- 
straint, but  willingly;  not  for  filthy  lucre,  but  of  a  ready  mind; 
neither  as  being  lords  over  God's  heritage,  but  being  ensample8 
to  the  flock."  They  were  first  told  to  feed  the  flock,  and  take 
the  oversight  of  it,  which  was  clearly  the  exercise  of  authority ; 
and  does  then  the  phrase  "  neither  as  being  lords  over  God's 
heritage  "  take  away  this  authority  ?  Was  this  part  of  the 
passage  aimed  at  the  existence  of  the  authority  of  the  elders, 
or  was  it  intended  to  apply  simply  to  the  manner  in  which  it 
should  be  exercised  ?  Clearly  to  the  manner  of  its  exercise  ; 
for  the  apostle  tells  these  elders  to  take  the  oversight,  willing- 
ly, with  a  ready  mind,  and  not  by  constraint,  nor  for  filthy  lucre, 
nor  as  being  lords  over  God's  heritage,  but  as  ensamples  to 
the  flock.  They, were  not  to  act  as  lords  over  the  heritage. 
Who  is  the  lord  over  a  heritage  ?  The  owner  of  it.  "  The 


100       THE  GOVERNING  POWER  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

lord  of  that  servant."  "  The  lord  of  the  vineyard."  The  elders 
were  not  to  exercise  their  authority,  which  was  but  delegated, 
as  if  they  were  the  lords  or  owners  of  the  heritage ;  but  they 
were  to  exercise  their  powers,  not  as  of  their  own  right,  but  as 
the  "  stewards  of  God,"  as  St.  Paul  has  it,  and  as  under-shep- 
herds,  as  St.  Peter  has  it. 

The  fourth  extract  is  taken  from  St.  Paul's  Epistle  to  the 
Romans.  The  apostle  first  tells  his  Roman  brethren  to  u  receive 
him  that  is  weak,  but  not  to  doubtful  disputations.  For  one 
believeth  that  he  may  eat  all  things ;  another,  who  is  weak,  eat- 
eth  herbs.  Let  not  him  that  eateth  despise  him  that  eateth 
not ;  and  let  not  him  which  eateth  not  judge  him  that  eateth  ; 
for  God  hath  received  him ; "  and  then  follows  the  extract 
given  ;  and  in  the  fifth  verse  the  apostle  continues :  "  One  man 
esteemeth  one  day  above  another ;  another  esteemeth  every 
day  alike.  Let  every  man  be  fully  persuaded  in  his  own  mind." 

Now,  it  is  clear  that  the  passage  quoted  is  confined  to  the 
matters  spoken  of  in  the  preceding  two  verses,  and  the  verse 
which  follows ;  for  in  the  second  verse  of  the  chapter,  the  apos- 
tle expressly  commands  those  who  eat  and  those  who  eat  not, 
neither  to  despise  nor  judge  one  another  for  eating  or  not 
eating ;  and  he  gives  as  a  reason  why  they  should  not  judge 
one  another,  that  these  things  were  not  evil  in  themselves,  but 
were  only  evil  to  those  who  thought  them  so.  (Ver.  14.)  So,  in 
like  manner,  in  reference  to  keeping  certain  days,  he  says,  "  Let 
every  man  be  fully  persuaded  in  his  own  mind."  The  act  itself 
being  indifferent,  and  the  sin,  if  any,  consisting  only  in  the  be- 
lief of  the  party  that  it  was  wrong  at  the  moment  of  its  commis- 
sion, the  rulers  were  very  properly  restrained  from  judging  a 
member  in  reference  to  such  matters.  But  in  reference  to  acts 
that  were  wicked  in  themselves,  or  in  regard  to  matters  of  faith, 
did  the  apostle  mean  to  say  that  members  should  not  be  judged  ? 
and  that  if  they  were  fully  persuaded  in  their  own  minds  it  was 
right  to  walk  disorderly,  or  be  guilty  of  heresy,  that  therefore 
they  could  be  guilty  of  these  offences,  and  yet  be  as  innocent  as 
if  they  eat  meat  or  not  ?  Did  the  apostle  mean  to  say  that 
Timothy  ought  not  to  receive  and  try  an  accusation  against  an 
elder,  or  that  Titus  ought  not  to  reject  a  heretic,  if  in  these 
cases  the  accused  would  only  say  he  thought  he  was  in  the 


THE  GOVERNING  TOWER  OF  THE  CHURCH.       101 

right  ?  And  even  if  Timothy  and  Titus  had  possessed  the  power 
to  look  into  the  secret  hearts  of  men,  and  had  been  satisfied  that 
the  accused  was  sincere,  were  they  not  bound  to  reject  the  mem- 
ber,  unless  he  repented  in  the  one  case  and  recanted  in  the 
other  ?  Was  mere  sincerity  ever  held  as  a  good  excuse  for  the 
wilful  violation  of  a  positive  law  commanding  this  and  prohibit- 
ing that  ?  and  especially  a  positive  rule  requiring  faith  as  well 
as  works  ?  Because,  in  reference  to  certain  matters  expressly 
stated  to  be  indifferent,  members  are  not  to  be  judged,  does  it 
follow,  that  in  other  matters  expressly  stated  to  be  material, 
they  are  also  not  to  be  tried  ?  On  the  contrary,  does  it  not 
legitimately  follow,  that  because  in  matters  indifferent  they 
were  not  to  be  judged,  that  in  matters  material  they  should  be 
judged  ?  The  manifest  difference  in  the  two  cases  leads  to  a 
manifest  difference  in  the  treatment  of  each.  "  In  matters  es- 
sential, let  there  be  unity — in  matters  non-essential,  liberty — 
and  in  all  things,  charity,"  is  one  of  the  most  noble,  rational, 
and  Scriptural  sentiments  ever  uttered. 

§  14.    Other  objections  considered. 

St.  Paul,  in  the  first  chapter  of  his  first  Epistle  to  the  Co- 
rinthians, says : 

"  Now  I  beseech  you,  brethren,  by  the  name  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  that  you  all  speak  the  same  thing,  and  that  there 
be  no  divisions  among  you,  but  that  ye  be  perfectly  joined  to- 
gether in  the  same  mind,  and  in  the  same  judgment." 

This  direction  being  given  to  the  members  of  the  church  at 
Corinth  generally,  and  especially,  in  this  case,  to  the  lay  mem- 
bers, who  are  besought  by  St.  Paul  to  speak  the  same  thing,  to 
be  of  the  same  mind  arid  of  the  same  judgment,  does  it  not  fol- 
low that  the  persons  addressed  were  to  arrive  at  such  unity  of 
faith  from  their  own  individual  researches  exclusively,  and  not 
from  any  obedience  to  the  elders  of  the  church  ?  It  does  not. 

The  apostle  would  not  have  given  this  command  to  those 
brethren  if  there  had  existed  no  means,  by  the  fair  and  just  use 
of  which  they  could  have  arrived  at  this  unity  of  faith.  But  the 
apostle  states  to  his  brethren  what  they  are  to  arrive  at,  but 
does  not,  in  that  place,  point  out  the  means  or  the  manner,  ex- 
cept as  to  those  special  instances  mentioned  in  the  next  verses. 


102       THE  GOVERNING  POWER  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

If  this  passage  stood  alone  in  the  New  Testament,  with  no  othei 
text  to  point  out  the  manner  and  the  means  by  which  they  were 
to  arrive  at  this  unity  of  faith,  and  we  were,  therefore,  left  to 
infer  them  ourselves,  then  we  would  be,  perhaps,  justified  in 
concluding  that,  as  the  command  was  given  directly  to  them, 
they  could  arrive  at  the  truth  without  following  the  faith  of 
those  that  had  the  rule  over  them.  But  this  text  must  be  con- 
strued with  reference  to  other  texts  relating  to  the  same  sub- 
ject ;  i.  6.,  unity  of  faith ;  and  such  construction  must  be  given 
as  will  give  harmonious  force  to  all.  When  St.  Paul  tells  his 
brethren  to  "  speak  the  same  thing,"  he  does  not  mean  to  con- 
tradict other  portions  of  this  same  epistle,  nor  his  other  epistles 
to  other  churches.  He  intended  to  be  consistent  with  himself. 

After  laying  down  the  general  principle  that  they  must  come 
to  the  unity  of  the  faith,  the  apostle,  as  one  of  their  teachers, 
goes  on  to  point  out,  not  in  general  terms,  but  in  very  precise 
language,  certain  particular  errors,  which  he  condemns  in  ex- 
press words.  But  the  general  principle  he  had  laid  down  re- 
lated to  and  embraced  the  necessity  of  unity,  not  only  in  refer- 
ence to  the  questions  specially  mentioned,  but  to  all  other 
material  questions.  In  reference,  then,  to  other  questions  that 
might  come  under  the  general  principle,  the  apostle  did  not  say 
to  his  brethren,  in  that  place,  you  must  arrive  at  the  unity  of 
faith  by  this  means  or  that  means,  or  in  this  manner  or  in  that 
manner ;  but  leaves  the  means  and  the  manner  to  be  stated 
elsewhere.  Consequently,  in  the  very  same  epistle,  we  find  him 
saying  to  these  same  brethren,  in  the  same  conciliatory  lan- 
guage : 

"  I  beseech  you,  brethren,  (ye  know  the  house  of  Stephanas, 
that  it  is  the  first  fruits  of  Achaia,  and  that  they  have  addicted 
themselves  to  the  ministry  of  the  saints,)  that  ye  submit  your- 
selves unto  such,  and  to  every  one  that  helpeth  with  us,  and 
luboreth." 

Now  it  is  plain  that  Stephanas,  and  "  every  one  that  helped 
and  labored  with "  St.  Paul  in  the  "  ministry,"  had  the  rule 
over  these  brethren  in  some  respects,  and  that  they  were  bound 
to  "  submit  themselves  to  such  "  in  the  same  way  they  submit- 
ted themselves  to  St.  Paul,  in  his  capacity  as  teacher ;  not  only 


THK  GOVERNING  POWER  OF  THE  CHURCH.       103 

because  they  are  expressly  so  commanded,  but  because  these 
men  helped  and  labored  with  St.  Paul  in  the  same  ministry. 

Now  in  reference  to  the  unity  of  the  faith,  were  these 
brethren  not  bound  to  submit  to  Stephanas  and  the  others  that 
labored  with  St.  Paul  ?  Does  not  that  command  to  submit  to 
these  men  embrace  all  the  preceding  matters  mentioned  in  this 
epistle  ?  It  would  seem  so.  But  supposing  this  not  sufficiently 
clear  from  this  epistle,  whatever  we  find  in  St.  Paul's  other 
epistles,  or  in  any  other  part  of  the  Scripture,  relating  to  the 
same  subject,  must  be  taken  and  construed  with  these  texts. 
We  must  suppose  that  whatever  part  of  the  system  had  been 
included  in  other  epistles  had  also  been  intended  for  these  breth- 
ren, and  that  they  had  been  well  instructed. 

St.  Paul  then  tells  these  brethren,  in  substance,  that  they 
must  arrive  at  the  unity  of  the  faith.  Of  course,  some  adequate 
means  existed  by  which  they  could  do  this.  What  were  these 
means  ?  The  same  apostle  very  explicitly  answers  this  question 
when  he  says  that  some  apostles,  some  prophets,  some  evan- 
gelists, and  some  pastors  and  teachers,  were  given  "  for  the  per- 
fecting of  the  saints,  for  the  work  of  the  ministry,  for  the  edify- 
ing the  body  of  Christ,  till  we  all  come  in  the  unity  of  the  faith 
and  of  the  knowledge  of  the  Son  of  God." 

Now  the  ultimate  end  to  be  attained  by  the  labors  of  these 
different  orders,  was  the  arrival  of  Christians  "in  the  unity  of 
the  faith  and  of  the  knowledge  of  the  Son  of  God ; "  the  very 
same  end  that  St.  Paul  commanded  his  brethren  at  Corinth  to 
attain ;  and  he  here  tells  his  Ephesian  brethren  that  it  was  for 
this  purpose  Christ  gave  these  different  orders.  These  were 
the  means  given  to  attain  the  end,  and  as  to  the  manner  in 
which  the  brethren  were  to  use  these  means,  the  same  apostle 
is  not  less  explicit ;  for  he  says  to  his  Thessalonian  brethren, 
"  Know  them  that  labor  among  you,  and  are  over  you  in  the 
Lord,  and  who  admonish  you ;  "  and  to  his  Hebrew  brethren, 
"  Remember  them  which  have  the  rule  over  you,  whose  faith 
follow,"  "obey  them  and  submit  yourselves;"  and  to  Timothy 
and  Titus,  "  Command,  teach,  rebuke,  and  exhort  with  all  au- 
thority and  doctrine,  withdraw  from  perverse  teachers,  try 
elders,  expel  heretics,"  and  perform  other  duties  of  teachers. 

Now  put  these  together,  and  are  not  the  means,  and  also  the 


104r  THE    GOVERNING    POWER    OF    THE    CHURCH. 

manner  in  which  they  are  to  be  used,  for  coming  to  "  the  unity 
of  the  faith,"  ".the  same  mind  and  judgment,"  most  distinctly 
stated?  If  the  Corinthian  brethren  obeyed  them  which  had  the 
rule  over  them,  and  implicitly  followed  their  faith,  they  would 
certainly  speak  the  same  thing,  and  be  of  the  same  mind  and 
judgment ;  and  in  this  way  most  explicitly  obey  the  command 
of  St.  Paul.  But  if,  instead  of  doing  this,  they  had  followed 
their  own  faith,  they  would  clearly  have  violated  very  plain  and 
repeated  commands ;  and  not  only  so,  but  it  is  exceedingly  dif- 
ficult to  see  how  they  could,  in  this  illogical  way,  have  ever 
come  to  the  same  conclusion. 

§  15.   Certain  positions  of  Mr.  JSrecJcenridge  examined. 

In  reference  to  the  ministerial  authority  of  the  Reformers, 
Bishop  Hughes,  in  his  controversy  with  Mr.  Breckenridge,  asked 
this  question : 

"Had  the  Reformers  themselves,  and  if  not,  could  they 
transmit  to  their  successors  any  MINISTERIAL  AUTHORITY  ?  "  To 
which  Mr.  B.  replied  :  "  that  whatever  authority  your  church 
possessed  in  this  way,  was  imparted  to  them."  Bishop  H.  an- 
swered :  "  But  our  church  recalled  this  authority,  in  their  sus- 
pension and  excommunication,  and  a  new  supply  was  necessary." 
To  this  Mr.  B.  replied  :  "  The  proper  answer  to  this-  question 
turns  on  the  settlement  of  a  previous  question,  to  wit :  had  the 
Church  of  Rome  the  right  or  power,  in  this  case,  to  withdraw 
their  ministerial  authority  ?  "  After  giving  some  reasons,  Mr. 
B.  takes  this  distinct  ground : 

"Then  the  principle  is  plain,  that  when  a  church  deposes  min- 
isters of  Christ  for  refusing  to  preach  ruinous  errors,  and  re- 
fusing to  submit  to  oppressive  usurpations,  the  deposing  act  is 
null  and  void.  If  a  minister  of  Christ  be  deposed  for  refusing  to 
sin,  the  deposition  is  null  and  void."  (Con.  H.  &  B.,  294,  443.) 

This  position  of  Mr.  B.,  in  its  essence,  and  in  its  practical  ef- 
fect, denies  all  government  in  the  Church. 

It  is  true  Mr.  B.  puts  in  a  condition.  The  act  of  the  Church 
is  only  null  and  void  when  made  for  reasons  not  allowed  by  the 
law  of  Christ.  But  of  the  sufficiency  of  these  reasons,  who  is  to 
judge  ?  Is  it  the  tribunal  making  the  deposition,  or  the  person 
deposed  f  The  question  must  be  determined  by  some  one  be- 


THE  GOVERNING  POWER  OF  THE  CHURCH.       105 

fore  the  conclusion  can  possibly  be  reached,  that  the  deposition 
is  null  and  void.  The  power  and  right  to  determine  this  im- 
portant question  must  rest  somewhere.  If  this  power  resides  in 
the  Church,  it  does  not  reside  in  the  minister.  It  cannot  equally 
reside  in  both.  The  right  of  ultimate  decision  must  remain  with 
only  one  of  the  two.  Mr.  B.  gives  this  right  and  power,  in  his 
theory,  not  to  the  Church,  but  to  the  person  deposed. 

What  sort  of  theory  is  that  which  makes  the  decision  of  the 
highest  tribunal  in  the  government  practically  null  and  void 
upon  the  objection  of  the  very  person  it  tries  and  condemns  ? 
The  Senate  of  the  United  States  must  try  all  impeachments. 
Suppose  that  body  should  try  an  impeachment  of  the  President, 
find  him  guilty,  and  depose  him  from  his  office.  And  suppose 
his  counsel  should  then  take  the  novel  and  bold  ground  that  the 
deposition  was  null  and  void,  because  contrary  to  law,  and  op- 
pressive and  tyrannical.  In  such  case  had  not  the  counsel  bet- 
ter return  to  the  study  of  his  profession  ? 

And  when  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  makes  a 
decision,  who  can  declare  that  decision  null  and  void,  because 
given  upon  grounds  alleged  not  legal  and  just  ?  In  the  theory 
of  our  government,  that  exalted  tribunal  is  bound  to  decide  ac- 
cording to  law,  and  in  this  same  theory,  it  always  does  so  decide. 
That  tribunal,  in  the  contemplation  of  the  Constitution,  cannot 
err.  If  the  Legislature  thinks  that  an  Act  of  Congress  has  been 
misconstrued,  the  Act  may  be  amended ;  and  future  cases  will 
come  under  the  new  act.  If,  in  the  opinion  of  the  people,  that 
Court  misconstrues  the  Constitution,  they  can  amend  that  in- 
strument, and  make  it  plainer.  Suppose  A  and  B,  having  a  con- 
troversy, should  go  into  a  court  of  justice  and  say :  "  May  it 
please  the  Court,  we  have  a  matter  we  wish  to  submit  to  the 
decision  of  this  Court,  upon  the  condition  that  the  decision  shall 
suit  us."  The  Court  would  promptly  reply :  "  This  Court  cannot 
sit  here  to  receive  idle  and  insulting  propositions." 

In  another  place  Mr.  B.  says : 

"  We  believe  in  a  visible  catholic  (not  Roman)  church,  to 

which  appertain  the  ministry,  the  oracles,  and  ordinances   of 

God,  which  is  to  continue  to  the  end  of  the  world  ;  to  which 

the  Holy  Spirit  is  promised  as  an  abiding  gift ;  against  which 

11 


106       THE  GOVERNING  POWKK  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail;  and  which  is  at  last  to  fill  the 
world."  (Con.  H.  &  B.,  61.) 

Now  I-cannot  put  the  two  positions  of  the  learned  contro- 
versialist together.  They  seem  to  be  in  direct  conflict.  He 
holds  a  visible  Catholic  Church,  which  is  to  continue  to  the  end 
of  time,  to  which  all  the  powers  of  government  are  given,  and 
their  exercise  guarantied  by  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  yet  when  this 
divinely-protected  Church  ordains  a  minister,  and  afterwards 
deposes  him,  that  deposition  may  be  null  and  void.  Here  is  a 
Church  to  which  the  Holy  Spirit  is  promised  as  an  x "  abiding 
gift,"  and  against  which  the  gates  of  hell  "  shall  not  prevail," 
and  which  at  last  is  to  "Jitt  the  world,"  that  cannot  even  depose 
a  minister  without  the  liability  of  error — a  Church  thus  divinely 
protected,  that  may  still  command  her  ministers  "  to  preach 
ruinous  errors  "  and  "  to  sin."  It  would  seem  a  most  singular 
theory,  that  gives  the  Church  the  abiding  gift  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  and  guards  her  against  the  gates  of  hell  at  all  times,  and 
yet  deserts  her  in  the  exercise  of  her  highest  functions — the  very 
and  only  end  of  her  creation.  Surely,  if  the  Holy  Ghost  should 
aid  the  Church  at  all,  this  aid  should  be  effective  ;  and  if  effec- 
tive, it  must  be  in  making  her  decisions,  and  in  administering 
the  law  of  this  kingdom.  It  was  so  in  the  Council  of  Jeru- 
salem. 

But  according  to  the  theory  of  Mr.  B.  the  Church  ordains 
a  minister,  and  then,  for  causes  judged  sufficient  by  the  ordain- 
ing power,  deposes  him.  Yet  this  sentence  of  deposition,  though 
made  by  the  highest  power  in  the  Church  on  earth,  is  not  final, 
not  conclusive,  in  the  contemplation  of  his  theory.  The  alleged 
decision  has  no  force,  unless  the  deposed  submits.  He  may  say 
it  is  null  and  void,  and  if  he  does  say  so,  there  is  no  power  on 
earth  to  decide  that  question  against  him. 

Is  there  any  government  in  a  Church,  whose  alleged  deci- 
sions may  be  set  aside  by  the  party  condemned  ?  or  by  any 
other  party  ?  What  sort  of  government  is  that,  whose  assumed 
decisions,  in  the  contemplation  of  the  theory  of  the  government 
itself,  are  entitled  to  so  little  respect,  that  they  can  be  disre- 
garded by  its  own  citizens  or  subjects  ?  What  practical  pur- 
pose can  such  decisions  (if  they  deserve  the  name)  accomplish  ? 
What  practical  good  ?  Is  such  an  idea  compatible  with  any 


THE  GOVERNING  POWER  OF  THE  CHURCH.       107 

sort  of  government  ?  That  which  we  call  government  is  alone, 
it  would  seem,  predicated  upon  the  idea  of  supremacy — the 
right  to  make  a  final  and  binding  decision  in  each  particular 
case.  Without  this  supreme  and  exclusive  right  placed  some- 
where in  the  governmental  institution,  there  can  be  no  govern- 
ment at  all ;  and  the  organization  is  poweness,  and  must  fail  to 
accomplish  the  very  end  and  purpose  of  its  creation. 

And  surely  the  theory  of  the  learned  Divine  does  make  the 
Church  a  most  extraordinary  institution — a  Church  most  mag- 
nificent in  name,  and  a  beautiful  nullity  in  fact.  By  this  theory, 
she  is  painfully  forced  to  claim  the  most  noble  titles — the  most 
glorious  guaranties — the  most  extended  and  protected  empire  ; 
and  yet,  after  making  these  supreme  pretensions,  and  after  be- 
ing cruelly  compelled  to  go  through  the  solemn  form  of  that 
which  is,  in  fact,  but  a  mock  trial  and  decision,  she  finds  her 
alleged  judgments  no  binding  decisions  at  all— no  evidence  that 
she  is  in  the  right ;  and  at  last  finds  herself  where  she  started, 
and  sees  herself  entitled  to  less  respect,  and  worthy  of  less  con- 
fidence, according  to  her  own  theory,  than  the  most  insignificant 
political  government  in  the  world.  To  be  compelled,  in  theory, 
to  claim  so  much,  and,  by  the  same  theory,  to  merit  so  little,  is 
the  most  humiliating  position  in  which  an  institution  could  be 
placed. 

It  may  be  that  the  theory  of  the  learned  Divine  is  suitable 
to  his  own  Church,  and  in  strict  accordance  with  her  true  char- 
acter ;  but  I  am  wholly  unable  to  find  any  intimation  in  the  New 
Testament  that  the  Church  of  Christ  was  ever  liable  to  these 
painful  infirmities,  and  that  her  decisions  might  be  null  and  void. 
I  might  as  well  expect  to  find  such  an  intimation  in  the  Consti- 
tution of  my  country  regarding  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  ;  or  in  the  British  Constitution  with 
reference  to  the  decisions  of  the  House  of  Lords. 


CHAPTER   IV. 

THE     INFALLIBILITY     OF     THE      CHURCH. 

§  1.  All  laws  intended  for  the  government  of  men  should  pro* 
vide  some  tribunal  to  determine  what  the  law  is. 

THE  very  idea  of  government  supposes  the  organization  of 
some  competent  tribunal  to  determine  what  the  law  means. 
Law  being  a  rule  prescribed  by  a  superior  to  an  inferior,  and 
which  the  inferior  is  bound  to  obey,  there  must,  of  necessity,  be 
a  tribunal  to  declare  and  administer  it.  Man  being  competent 
to  live  in  society,  the  object  of  political  government  is  to  regu- 
late his  conduct  while  in  that  state  ;  and  hence  to  secure  the 
peaceful  union  of  a  great  number  of  individuals  under  one  gov- 
ernment, laws  are  made,  and  courts  of  justice  instituted  to  de- 
cide what  the  laws  mean. 

If  we  look  around  us  through  the  world,  we  shall  readily 
find,  that  no  great  object  is  ever  undertaken  without  the  union 
of  numbers.  From  a  small  village  debating  society,  through 
every  grade  of  organization,  up  to  the  mightiest  civil  govern- 
ment on  earth,  the  immediate  end  to  be  secured  is  union  of 
effort  /  and  so  sensible  do  men  seem  to  be  of  the  importance  of 
this  union,  that  they  never  fail  to  make  some  provision,  in  the 
constitution  of  every  society,  organizing  some  tribunal  to  decide 
all  matters  of  difference  that  may  arise.  All  men  seem  to  act 
under  the  clear  consciousness  of  the  invincible  necessity  of  some 
judicial  tribunal  to  decide  what  the  law  means ;  for  to  what  end 
was  any  law  given  unless  it  is  to  be  practically  administered  ? 
And  how  can  this  be  done  without  a  judiciary  ? 

Among  the  great  number  of  visionary  schemes  of  govern- 
ment put  forth  oy  different  writers,  not  one,  to  my  knowledge, 
ever  advanced  so  wild  a  theory,  as  to  dispense  with  the  judicial 


THE   INFALLIBILITY    OF   THE    CHURCH.  109 

department,  and  make  each  individual  governed  the  judge  of 
the  law  in  his  own  case.  A  theory  so  extravagant,  I  presume, 
was  never  even  proposed  anywhere ;  and  certainly  never  re- 
duced to,  and  continued  in,  actual  operation. 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  the  constitutions 
of  the  several  States,  distribute  the  powers  of  government 
among  three  departments,  namely :  the  Legislative,  the  Execu- 
tive, and  the  Judicial.  And  the  powers  conferred  upon  each  of 
these  three  departments,  are  all  equally  necessary  to  the  con- 
tinued existence  of  the  government.  But  whether  this  necessary 
power  be  separated  from  the  others  or  not,  it  does,  and  of 
necessity  must,  exist  in  every  government.  The  absolute  mon-. 
arch,  either  administers  his  own  laws  himself  in  person,  or 
through  judges  acting  for  him. 

The  very  idea  of  law,  presupposes  this  power  to  exist  in  the 
government.  The  very  idea  of  union  among  a  number  of  indi- 
viduals, cannot  be  rationally  entertained  without  it.  There  can 
be  no  continued  union  among  men,  without  some  competent 
means  to  preserve  it.  All  positive  laws  intended  for  the  gov- 
ernment of  men  must  be  construed  /  and  as  they  constitute  a 
rule  prescribed  by  a  superior,  they  cannot,  in  the  nature  of  the 
case,  be  construed  in  the  last  resort  by  the  inferior,  the  very 
party  to  be  governed.  The  power  and  right  to  make  the  laws 
in  the  first  instance,  and  construe  them  in  the  last  resort,  must 
be  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  superior.  The  right  of  ultimate 
construction  in  the  inferior,  would  defeat  the  entire  purposes  of 
the  legislator. 

Every  government  must  furnish* its  own  tribunal  to  admin- 
ister its  own  laws.  Every  association  of  individuals  must  con- 
tain, in  itself,  some  competent  power  to  determine  controver- 
sies, or  it  must  become  divided  against  itself.  No  association 
can  permit  a  foreign  tribunal  to  administer  its  own  laws  over  its 
own  members.  Every  society  of  men  must  have  the  power 
lodged  somewhere,  to  construe  the  law ;  and  that  independent 
of  the  individual  opinion  of  any  of  the  members.  This  vital 
principle  is  necessary  to  the  very  existence  of  any  sort  of  gov- 
ernment among  men. 


110  THE    INFALLIBILITY    OF   THE    CHURCH. 

§  2.  Are  these  principles  applicable  to  the  Christian  association  f 
The  question  then  arises,  are  these  clear,  luminous,  and  prac- 
tical principles,  which  are  inherent  in  the  nature  and  necessities 
of  government,  applicable  to  that  "  rule  of  moral  conduct,  and 
measure  of  faith  "  prescribed  by  God  to  man  ?  Did  God,  in 
making  a  positive  law  for  mankind,  intend  to  institute  any  sort 
of  government  among  them?  Or  did  He  intend  there  should 
exist  any  union  among  those  who  obeyed  His  law  ?  If  so,  has 
He  provided  any  competent  means  to  preserve  this  union? 
Did  He  provide  any  efficient  means  to  administer  that  govern- 
ment through  agents  authorized  by  Him  for  that  purpose  ? 
Or  does  He  Himself  visibly  administer  and  construe  His  law, 
from  time  to  time,  as  occasion  may  require?  Is  there  the  same, 
or  even  greater  necessity,  that  men  should  know,  with  certainty, 
the  meaning  of  the  law  of  God,  as  there  is  that  they  should 
know  the  meaning  of  the  "  municipal  law  "  ?  And  if  so,  must 
there  not  be  means  efficient  to  produce  that  end  ? 

In  making  a  comparison  between  the  Divine  and  municipal 
law,  it  is  necessary  to  keep  our  attention  steadily  fixed  upon 
the  point,  whether  the  two  systems  agree  substantially  in  those 
respects,  which  render  the  establishment  of  some  tribunal  to  de- 
cide controversies  indispensable  ;  and  if  they  do,  the  conclusion 
becomes  invincible,  that  there  must,  in  the  nature  of  things,  ex- 
ist such  a  tribunal  in  that  association  brought  and  kept  together 
by  the  law  of  Christ. 

In  relation  to  the  municipal  law,  it  may  be  remarked,  that 
it  is  almost  wholly  taken  from  the  Divine.  There  is  scarcely  a 
crime  prohibited  by  the  first,  that  is  not  prohibited  by  the 
second.  All  the  great  leading  features  of  the  municipal,  are 
borrowed  from  the  Divine  law  :  and  no  Christian,  as  such,  can 
violate  the  municipal,  without  violating  the  law  of  God,  except 
in  those  rare  cases  where  the  two  conflict ;  and  this  never  hap- 
pens, except  where  the  powers  of  civil  government  are  usurped, 
or  perverted  from  their  legitimate  ends.  In  the  concise  and 
beautiful  language  of  one  of  our  earliest  law  books :  "  In  every 
law  positive  well  made,  is  somewhat  of  the  law  of  reason,  and 
of  the  law  of  God ;  and  to  discover  the  law  of  God,  and  the  law 
of  reason,  from  the  law  positive,  is  very  hard."  (Doctor  and 
Student,  1  Dialogue,  1.  4.) 


THE   INFALLIBILITY   OF  THE   CHURCH.  Ill 

The  civil  law  is  then  based  upon  the  Divine,  and  derives  its 
force  and  efficacy  from  the  permission  of  the  divine  law  to 
establish  political  government ;  and  from  the  express  command 
in  the  Gospel,  to  obey  those  in  lawful  authority. 

It  must  be  obvious  to  common  sense,  that  all  laws  must  be 
similar  in  those  general  respects  requisite  to  constitute  law 
itself.  There  must  be  certain  constituent  principles  to  make  up 
every  law.  It  could  not  be  a  law  at  all  without  constituent 
principles.  I,  therefore,  lay  down  these  two  positions  as  true  : 

1.  All  systems  of  positive  law  must  agree  in  those  essential 
elements  necessary  to    constitute   law  itself;  otherwise,  they 
could  not  be  laws  at  all. 

2.  They  must  differ  in  certain  other  respects;   otherwise, 
they  would  be  the  same. 

These  positions  being  true,  in  what  great  and  essential  re- 
spects do  the  municipal  and  the  Divine  law  resemble  each 
other  ? 

1.  They  are  both  based  upon  the  fundamental  principle  that 
gome  government  is  indispensable  to  man's  condition. 

2.  That  there  is  some  right  to  make  laws,  and  some  cor- 
responding duty  to  obey,  placed  somewhere. 

3.  They  are  both  positive  laws,  promulgated  in  human  lan- 
guage ;  and   both   must,  therefore,  be  construed   and   admin- 
istered. 

4.  They  are  both  intended  for  men,  and  have  in  view  the 
same  immediate  end — the  union  of  numbers,  and  the  preserva- 
tion of  peace  among  those  united. 

5.  They  both  have  penalties  attached.* 

*  The  reason  why  God  did  not  prescribe  any  positive  form  of  political  gov- 
ernment, is  that  such  government  is  a  present  necessity  ;  ana  this  necessity, 
like  the  laws  of  nature,  would  practically  vindicate  itself.  And  as  the  effects  of 
political  institutions  are  but  temporary,  men  can  create  governments  competent 
to  attain  substantially  the  end  intended,  namely  :  the  preservation  of  the  race. 
But,  conceding  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  and  the  consequent  existence  of  a  fu- 
ture state  of  rewards  and  punishments,  the  necessity  of  a  direct  revelation  of 
God's  will  to  mankind,  becomes  at  once  apparent.  We  may  well  be  able  to  bear 
the  evils  incident  to  mere  human  institutions ;  since,  if  we  first  fulfil  the  law  of 
God,  these  temporary  evils  are  but  trifling  ;  but  to  leave  eternal  consequences  to 
hang  upon  uncertainty,  would  be  equally  unjust  to  God  and  to  man. 


112  THE   INFALLIBILITY   OF   THE   CHURCH. 

They  are,  therefore,  alike  possessed  of  the  essential  princi- 
ples that  must  constitute  every  positive  law. 

§  3.  There  is  tJie  same  necessity  for  such  a  tribunal  in  the  Chris- 
tian, as  in  political  government. 

If  it  be  indispensable  for  the  just  administration  and  success 
of  the  municipal  law,  that  there  should  be  &  living,  speaking  ju- 
diciary, plainly  accessible  to  all,  whose  duty  it  is  to  decide  what 
the  law  is,  and  what  it  means,  is  it  not  also  plain  and  palpable 
that  there  should  be  a  like  institution  to  determine  the  true  con- 
struction of  the  Divine  Law,  so  as  to  preserve  unity  and  peace 
among  those  whom  it  governs,  by  keeping  the  construction  of 
the  law  always  the  same,  throughout  every  part  of  the  associa- 
tion ?  To  my  apprehension  this  conclusion  must  follow  from  a 
just  and  fair  consideration  of  the  nature,  end,  and  object  of  all 
law,  intended  for  the  government  of  men  on  earth. 

It  is  true  that  the  Divine  law  is  derived  immediately,  and 
the  municipal-  but  mediately,  from  God.  But  the  mere  source 
from  which  a  law  immediately  emanates  does  not,  in  and  of 
itself,  divest  the  system  of  the  very  characteristics  of  all  law. 
The  mere  fact  that  the  Divine  law  was  put  forth  by  God  in  the 
form  of  a  positive  code,  does  not  obviate  the  necessity  for  the 
continued  existence  of  some  tribunal  to  determine  what  the  law 
means  ;  for  the  plain  reason  that  this  law  is  intended,  like  the 
municipal  code,  to  govern  men,  to  unite  men,  is  addressed  to 
men,  in  man's  imperfect  language,  and  must,  therefore,  be  con- 
strued by  some  one  ;  and  there  is  thus  the  same,  if  not  greater, 
necessity  for  uniformity  of  decision,  for  peace  in  the  association, 
and  for  the  success  of  the  system.  And  the  fact  that  this  asso- 
ciation was  intended  to  embrace  all  Christians  everywhere,  in 
all  ages,  under  one  law,  in  one  united  government,  is  the  strong- 
est possible  reason  for  the  organization  of  one  tribunal  of  the 
last  resort. 

It  is  one  of  the  most  forcible  reasons  why  God  should  have 
made  a  direct  revelation  to  man,  that  He  could  not  justly  pun- 
ish men,  unless  he  first  "prescribed"  His  law.  From  the  same 
reason  it  follows  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  lawmaker  to  create  a 
competent  tribunal  to  construe  the  law  ;  for  without  such  a  tri- 
bunal, the  publication  of  the  law  is  very  imperfect,  and  does 


THE   INFALLIBILITY   OF   THE   CHUBCH.  113 

not  afford  that  reasonable  means  of  certainty  that  every  just 
system  should  supply. 

We  will  suppose  a  legislator  to  put  forth  a  code  of  laws, 
drawn  up  with  all  attainable  accuracy,  while  we  are  forced  to 
convey  our  ideas  through  so  changeable  and  imperfect  a  medium 
as  human  language,  and  addressed  to  so  frail  a  mind  as  that  of 
man,  and  that  he  should  have  constituted  no  tribunal  to  deter- 
mine what  he  meant,  and  should  leave  the  people  to  whom  this 
code  was  given  for  a  great  number  of  years,  and  should  then  re- 
turn and  call  them  up  in  judgment  before  him.  What  a  strange 
medley  of  opinions  he  would  find  regarding  the  construction  of 
his  laws !  He  would  say  to  them :  "  You  have  misconstrued  and 
violated  my  laws,  and_I  must  punish  you."  They  would  an- 
swer :  "  That  is  a  hard  case.  You  did  not  treat  us  fairly.  You 
gave  us  no  authorized  tribunal  to  decide  for  us,  whose  decisions 
from  time  to  time  would  have  settled  difficulties,  and  upon  which 
we  could  have  relied  for  a  correct  interpretation  of  your  law. 
You  left  each  one  to  interpret  for  himself,  at  his  own  peril ;  and 
as  we  are  so  differently  constituted,  with  different  powers  of 
mind ;  and  as  our  opportunities  of  information  were  so  widely 
different,  we  could  not  but  come  to  very  different  conclusions. 
Immediately  after  you  left,  difficulties  of  construction  arose,  and 
have  been  constantly  arising  ever  since ;  and  had  there  existed  a 
tribunal,  they  could  have  been  all  settled  from  time  to  time,  as 
often  as  they  arose.  The  idea  of  giving  the  same  law  to  so  great 
a  variety  of  persons  as  necessarily  compose  every  community, 
requiring  each  and  all  to  think  and  act  alike,  without  giving 
them  the  same  tribunal,  equally  competent  to  construe  the  law 
for  att — the  learned  and  the  ignorant,  the  rich  and  the  poor,  the 
high  and  the  low — is  to  our  minds  unfair,  and  we  think  you 
ought  not  to  punish  us.  One  thing  we  do  know,  and  that  is  this, 
we  have  been  wholly  unable  to  agree  in  the  construction  of  your 
law,  and  you  left  no  means  to  secure  this  agreement." 

And  to  such  unanswerable  logic  as  this,  what  could  the  leg- 
islator justly  reply  ?  In  vain  would  he  say  :  "  My  law  is  plain, 
simple,  and  easily  understood.  It  scarcely  needs  construction." 
They  would  reply :  "  Truly  and  verily,  the  wisest  men  among 
us,  while  they  declare  it  plain,  differ  most  essentially  as  to  what 
it  means.  They  cannot  all  understand  "plain  "  alike.  And  as 


114  THE    INFALLIBILITY   OF   THE   CHURCH. 

for  most  of  us,  we  are  plain,  illiterate  men,  and  the  law  is  not 
plain  to  us.  The  Greek  language  may  be  plain  to  him  who  un- 
derstands it,  but  it  is  still  Greek  to  us.  And  had  it  been  your 
deliberate  purpose  to  so  arrange  your  system  as  to  involve  the 
very  best  of  us  in  unwilling  violations  of  it,  you  could  not  more 
successfully  have  accomplished  such  a  design,  than  you  have 
done  by  leaving  us  in  the  confused  and  destitute  situation  you 
did." 

Is  it  not,  therefore,  reasonable  that  the  Divine  law,  which 
comprehends  the  whole  duty  of  man,  should  provide  a  tribunal 
to  construe  it,  and  thus  to  settle  all  disputes  in  the  association 
respecting  it  ?  If  such  a  tribunal  be  necessary  in  political  govern- 
ment, is  it  riot  even  more  so  in  the  Christian  system  V  If  there 
be  truth  in  Christianity,  it  is  surely  more  important  to  know  its 
law  with  certainty  than  to  correctly  understand  the  law  of  the 
country.  And  can  associated  men  remain  united  without  some 
competent  authority  to  settle  disputes  ?  If  so,  what  sort  of 
union  can  it  be  ?  Is  there  any  living,  perpetuating  principle  in 
a  system  without  such  a  tribunal  ?  Is  there  any  thing  like  sys- 
tem in  a  code  which  provides  no  court  to  decide  what  it  is?  Is 
there,  or  can  there  be,  any  government  at  all  in  any  association 
of  men,  without  a  judiciary  ?  If  so,  what  sort  of  government 
is  it? 

It  may  be  said  that  the  ultimate  end  of  the  municipal  law  is 
to  produce  temporal,  and  that  of  the  Divine,  eternal  happiness  ; 
and,  therefore,  the  necessity  for  such  a  tribunal  which  exists  in 
the  former,  does  not  arise  under  the  latter  system.  But  this 
would  seem  to  be  no  answer  to  the  argument. 

It  is  true  that  there  is  a  vast  difference  between  temporal 
and  eternal  happiness ;  but  this  fact  only  renders  it  the  more  ne- 
cessary to  understand  the  Divine  law,  and  proves  the  greater 
necessity  of  a  competent  tribunal  to  construe  it  in  the  last  resort. 
Besides  this,  it  is  still  happiness,  and  happiness  of  the  same  be- 
ing, that  constitutes  the  ultimate  end  of  both  systems.  Tem- 
poral and  eternal  happiness  differ  in  degree  and  duration.  Gov- 
ernment is  only  a  means,  and  not  an  end.  The  immediate  end 
proposed  by  both  systems  is  the  practical  and  continued  union 
of  men.  It  does  not  matter  that  the  ultimate  ends  of  these  dif- 
ferent systems  are  not  the  same  in  degree  and  duration,  while 


THE   INFALLIBILITY   OF   THE   CHUKCH.  115 

they  are  the  same  in  substance.  If  the  means  used  are  substan 
tially  the  same,  these  means  must  be  subject  to  the  same  general 
laws.  If  our  Lord  resorted  to  a  visible  association  of  men  to 
accomplish  the  union  of  His  followers,  and  the  united,  and,  there- 
fore, successful  spread  of  His  system,  this  association  of  men 
must,  in  itself,  possess  all  the  essential  requisites  that  enter  into, 
arid  constitute  all  associations,  and  render  them  practically  effi- 
cient to  accomplish  the  purpose  intended.  To  suppose  that  our 
Lord  would  adopt  means  of  a  certain  character,  and  yet  take 
from  them  the  vital  and  inherent  principles  essential  to  render 
such  means  efficient,  would  seem  to  be  clearly  unjust  to  Him. 
When  He  used  language  as  a  medium  of  communication  with 
men,  He  did  not  rob  it  of  its  established  character. 

§  4.  That  in  reason,  such  tribunal,  when  established,  must  pos- 
sess infallibility,  either  actual  or  judicial,  according  to  the 
nature  of  the  system. 

As  the  municipal  law  only  assumes  to  control  our  outward 
acts,  and  does  not  reach  our  mere  belief  and  intentions,  a  man 
may  believe  all  the  falsehood,  and  intend  all  the  wrong  he 
pleases,  and  still  commit  no  offence  against  that  code.  But  it 
is  not  so  in  the  perfect  law  of  God,  which  controls  us  in  belief, 
intention,  and  act. 

The  fact  that  the  law  of  Christianity  goes  so  much  further 
than  the  municipal  code,  requiring  so  much  more  to  be  forborne, 
believed,  and  done,  and  that  its  punishments  and  rewards  are 
so  much  greater  and  more  enduring,  renders  it  the  more  im- 
portant that  there  should  be  union  and  peace  in  the  Christian 
association ;  and  that  for  this  end,  it  is  still  more  necessary  that 
some  tribunal,  perfectly  competent  to  determine  all  controver- 
sies, should  be  found  in  the  Christian  government. 

If  union  among  men  be  necessary  for  any  given  purpose,  the 
preservation  of  that  union  becomes  equally  important,  so  long 
as  that  purpose  continues  to  exist ;  and  this  union  cannot  be  ac- 
complished unless  some  fair  and  adequate  means  be  provided 
for  this  end.  It  may  be  laid  down  as  an  unerring  principle,  that 
union,  in  any  association  of  men,  cannot  continue  to  exist  with- 
out peace  ;  and  that  peace  cannot  be  preserved  without  compe- 


116  THE   INFALLIBILITY   OF   THE   CHURCH. 

tent  means  to  end  disputes.  The  happiness  that  men  expect  to 
obtain  by  entering  into  society  cannot  be  enjoyed  without  peace, 
and  if  peace  cannot  be  had  in  any  association,  the  end  and  ob- 
ject of  the  association  must  fail.  If  the  design  of  all  law  and  of 
all  government  be  to  form  and  secure  the  continued  union  of 
men,  and  for  this  purpose  to  secure  peace  among  the  members 
associated,  and  if  it  be  necessary  for  these  ends  that  a  tribunal 
be  established  to  decide  controversies,  it  follows,  as  a  matter  of 
course,  that  the  determinations  of  such  tribunal  must  be  full, 
final,  and  conclusive,  or  the  decision  must  fail  to  accomplish  the 
end  intended,  and  thus  amount  to  no  decision  at  all.  The  de- 
cisions of  a  court  of  last  resort  must  be  final ;  otherwise  they 
amount  to  nothing,  and  end  no  dispute. 

§  5.  That  in  political  governments,  judicial  infallibility  is 
found. 

If  we  go  into  the  appropriate  apartment  of  the  Capitol,  at 
Washington  City,  we  shall  find  in  session  an  august  tribunal, 
before  whose  bar  the  most  learned  and  gifted  men  of  the  nation 
display  their  reasoning  eloquence.  This  great  court  is  composed 
of  a  very  few  judges,  whose  equals,  if  not  superiors,  in  mental 
and  moral  qualifications,  are  found  among  the  great  lawyers 
who  stand  before  it,  and  also  among  the  learned  judges  who  sit 
in  the  State  courts ;  and  yet  its  decisions  are  conclusive  upon 
all.  Its  adjudications  not  only  control  the  course  of  decision 
of  the  inferior  Federal  tribunals,  but  are  binding  upon  the  State 
courts,  and  are  competent  to  annul  the  acts  of  the  President 
and  of  Congress. 

Before  this  lofty  tribunal,  honor,  titles,  wealth,  and  fame  are 
powerless ;  and  nothing  but  pure  legal  justice  is  presumed,  in 
contemplation  of  law,  to  govern  and  guide  its  conclusions.  No 
armed  bands  of  soldiers  throng  its  halls  to  protect  it  and  enforce 
its  decisions,  and  yet  this  court  settles  questions  involving  the 
dearest  rights  of  millions  of  civilized  and  enlightened  men.  This 
venerable  tribunal  is  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States, 
and  upon  it  the  Constitution  of  our  country  has  conferred  judi- 
cial infallibility. 

The  framers  of  that  great  instrument,  the  Constitution  of 


THE    INFALLIBILITY    OF   THE   CHURCH.  117 

the  United  States,  were  men  of  pre-eminent  ability,*  and  they 
gave  to  it  all  the  certainty  attainable  by  them.  And  yet  they 
knew  it  would  be  idle  to  make  a  constitution  and  laws  under  it, 
and  not  organize  courts  for  their  construction.  They  also  knew 
that  it  was  useless  to  have  courts,  unless  their  decisions  could 
be  made  final;  and  for  this  purpose  they  provided  for  the  or- 
ganization of  ONE  SUPREME  COURT,  with  appellate  juris- 
diction, and  gave  Congress  the  power  to  provide  for  the  crea- 
tion of  inferior  tribunals  only.  They  had  it  not  in  their  power 
to  confer  upon  the  Supreme  Court  actual  infallibility,  for  this 
is  an  attribute  belonging  alone  to  God,  and  only  communicated 
by  Him  to  whom  He  pleases.  In  the  very  nature  of  all  govern- 
mental or  social  institutions,  such  is  the  invincible  necessity  for 
infallibility  of  some  sort  to  reside  in  some  one  of  their  tribunals, 
that  when  actual  infallibility  cannot  be  conferred,  judicial  infal- 
libility is  given. 

In  the  contemplation  of  our  Constitution,  the  Supreme  Court 
cannot  err.  There  is  no  legal  power  anywhere  to  question  its 
decisions.  AH  must  submit.  It  is  not  in  the  power  of  the 
President,  the  Congress,  and  all  the  State  courts  combined,  to 
set  aside  one  of  its  decisions.  And  yet  it  is  generally  conceded 
that  the  Court  has  actually  rendered  incorrect  decisions.  That 
court  sustained  the  constitutionality  of  the  Alien  and  Sedition 
Laws,  which  decision  is  now  almost  universally  held  to  have 
been  erroneous.  But  admitting  that  the  Court  has  not  yet  ac- 
tually erred,  it  must  be  conceded  that  it  may.  The  framers  of 
the  Constitution  were  compelled  to  bestow  upon  this  tribunal 
judicial  infallibility,  because  they  could  bestow  no  other,  and 
some  sort  of  infallibility  was  indispensable.  It  is  a  much  less 
evil  to  submit  to  an  occasional  erroneous  decision  than  to  have 

*  The  following  beautiful  lines  are  from  the  pen  of  our  native  poet,  Bryant : 

1.  "  Great  were  the  thoughts  and  strong  the  minds 

Of  those  who  framed,  in  high  debate, 
The  immortal  league  of  love  that  binds 
Our  fair,  broad  empire,  State  with  State. 

2.  "  The  noble  race  is  gone — the  suns 

Of  sixty  years  have  risen  and  set, 
But  the  bright  links  those  chosen  ones 
So  strongly  forged,  are  brighter  yet." 


118  THK    INFALLIBILITY    OF   THE   CHURCH. 

no  decision  at  all,  so  necessary  is  peace.  In  every  government, 
in  every  association  of  men  who  are  to  be  governed  at  all,  there 
must  be  infallibility  of  some  kind,  placed  somewhere,  or  there 
can  be  no  end  of  disputes,  and  no  peace,  and  no  union,  and  no 
success  of  such  an  institution. 

§  6.   That  actual  infallibility  must  be  found  in  the  Christian, 
association. 

If  there  be  any  union  required  by  the  law  of  Christ,  and  any 
tribunal  to  decide  disputes,  (thereby  forming  a  necessary  and 
indispensable  means  of  union,)  is  it  not  clear  that  such  tribunal 
must,  of  necessity,  possess  infallibility  of  some  sort,  or  else  the 
institution  be  totally  defective  and  insufficient  ?  If  there  be  no 
infallibility  in  the  association  of  men,  formed  in  accordance  with 
the  law  of  God,  then  it  is  more  defective  than  mere  political 
governments,  and  cannot  possibly  possess  any  living,  perpetuat- 
ing principle.  For  what  purpose  does  a  tribunal  decide,  if  its 
decision*  is  not  final,  or  cannot  be  made  final,  by  an  appeal  to  a 
higher  court  ?  What  is  the  object  of  a  decision  ?  To  end  dis- 
putes ;  and  if  not  final,  it  does  not  end  the  controversy,  and  is 
simply  idle.  That  which  is  not  competent  to  make  a  final  and 
binding  decision,  cannot  properly  be  called  a  judiciary. 

And  if  God  did  establish  such  tribunal,  could  He,  in  reason, 
give  it  mere  judicial  infallibility  ?  Would  He  make  it  as  defec- 
tive as  mere  human  institutions,  when  He  possessed  the  wisdom 
and  the  power  to  make  it  perfect  ?  Does  God  do  His  work  in 
that  way  ?  It  is  true,  that  if  God  implicitly  required  all  the 
members  to  submit  to  the  decisions  of  such  a  tribunal,  the  asso- 
ciation might  continue,  but  it  would  not  continue  the  same  pure 
association.  The  tribunal  being  actually  fallible,  and  Qi&y  judi- 
cially infallible,  must  actually  err,  sooner  or  later,  and  God 
would  thus  be  requiring  implicit  submission  to  erroneous  deci- 
sions. The  idea  of  a  tribunal  only  clothed  with  mere  jifdicial 
infallibility,  deciding  finally  upon  a  law  dictated  by  actual  infal- 
libility, would  seem  to  be  clearly  erroneous.  And  the  idea  of  a 
tribunal  of  the  last  resort  deciding  upon  a  law  given  in  human 
language,  and  such  decision  not  being  final,  would  seem  equally 
inadmissible. 

Had   the   framers   of  political   constitutions   possessed  the 


TIJK    INFALLIBILITY    OF    THE    C11UBCH.  119 

power,  they  no  doubt  would  have  bestowed  upon  their  judiciary 
actual,  instead  of  mere  judicial,  infallibility.  They  did  the  very 
best  they  could.  But  as  God  possessed  the  power  and  the  wis- 
dom, and,  therefore,  did  make  a  perfect  law,  would  He  not  ne- 
cessarily create  a  tribunal  competent  to  construe  such  a  law  f 
And  is  not  a  tribunal  actually  infallible,  in  the  nature  of  things, 
indispensable  to  construe  a  law  made  by  the  Divine  Lawmaker  ? 
Could  the  great  ends  aimed  at — the  mighty  purposes  intended 
— be  accomplished  without  this  ? 

It  is  a  just  and  generous  mode  of  reasoning,  to  take  the 
theory  under  investigation  to  be  true,  for  the  sake  of  the  argu- 
ment only,  and  then  submit  it  to  a  fair  and  impartial  test,  by  a 
legitimate  extension  of  its  principles  into  all  their  logical  results. 
For  this  purpose  I  will  suppose  that  our  Creator  made  man  and 
placed  him  upon  the  earth ;  that  He  bestowed  upon  him  the 
faculty  of  reason,  and  its  necessary  incident,  free  will ;  that  He 
gave  to  this  free  agent  a  direct  and  positive  law,  prescribed  by 
Himself;  that  the  immediate  end  of  this  law  was  to  bring  all 
men  of  good  will  into  one  association  of  pure  faith  and  virtue, 
to  be  governed  by  this  one  law ;  *that  this  law  was  given  in  hu- 
man language,  and  must  be  construed ;  that  God  does  not  Him- 
self  visibly  preside,  in  this  collective  body  of  men,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  deciding  controversies,  but  that  for  this  end  He  has 
organized  a  tribunal  in  this  association,  and  delegated  to  it 
power  and  authority  to  decide,  with  infallible  certainty,  all 
questions  regarding  His  law  that  may  arise  from  age  to  age,  and 
in  succession,  as  they  arise  ;  that  this  body  is  a  visible  associa- 
tion of  men,  to  whom  all  men  may  join  themselves,  if  they  will ; 
that  communion  with  this  association  is  a  practical  and  sure  test 
of  faith,  and  that  this  institution  is  but  preparatory  to  that  ep 
during  institution  in  heaven. 

Is  there  any  thing  in  this  theory  inconsistent,  unjust,  or  un- 
philosophical  ?  Is  it  incompatible  with  the  attributes  of  Deity  ? 
On  the  contrary,  is  it  not  a  rational  theory,  beautiful  to  the 
judgment,  and  consolatory  to  the  heart  ?  It  would  seem  to 
possess  every  element  of  a  perfect  system,  harmonious,  practi- 
cal, and  just,  in  every  feature. 


120  THE    INFALLIBILITY    OF   THE   CHURCH. 

§  7.  That  the  judicial  power  of  the  Church  must  extend  to  every 
violation  of  the  law. 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  organized  a  govern- 
ment, possessing  certain  defined  powers,  and  intended  to  accom- 
plish certain  great  national  objects.  The  instrument,  in  the 
theory  of  the  system,  is  the  fundamental  and  unchangeable  law, 
until  amended  in  pursuance  of  its  own  provisions.  As  the  legis- 
lative power,  from  the  nature  of  mere  human  systems,  and  the 
limited  capacity  of  men,  and  the  constantly  varying  circum- 
stances of  the  people  governed,  could  not  all  be  beneficially  ex- 
ercised at  the  beginning,  it  is  left,  in  part,  in  the  government, 
to  be  exercised,  from  time  to  time,  within  the  limits  prescribed 
by  the  Constitution.  The  powers  of  this  government  are  di- 
vided between  three  departments,  which,  together,  embrace  all 
the  powers  communicated  to  the  system.  The  legislative  de- 
partment extends  to  all  legislative  questions,  the  executive  to 
all  the  executive  powers,  and  the  judiciary  to  all  questions  in 
law  and  equity  arising  under  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the 
nation.  In  reference  to  the  extent  of  the  judicial  power,  Chan- 
cellor Kent  has  said  : 

"  The  judicial  power  in  every  government  must  be  coexten- 
sive with  the  power  of  legislation.  Were  there  no  power  to 
interpret,  pronounce,  and  execute  the  law,  the  government 
would  either  perish  through  its  own  imbecility,  as  was  the  case 
with  the  old  Confederation,  or  other  powers  must  be  assumed 
by  the  legislative  body,  to  the  destruction  of  liberty."  (1  Kent, 
296.) 

While  the  legislative  power  in  the  Christian,  government 
could  be  exercised  in  advance,  in  reference  to  all  ihe  material 
and  permanent  features  of  the  system,  the  executive  and  judi- 
cial powers,  from  their  nature,  could  not,  as  already  stated,  but 
must  continue  in  the  Church,  and  be  exercised  as  often  as  occa- 
sion may  require.  It  would,  therefore,  seem  plain  that  the 
governing  power  left  by  Christ  in  the  church  must  have  juris- 
diction over  all  cases  embraced  within  the  law  governing  the 
institution.  In  other  words,  if  Christ  gave  to  His  own  institu- 
tion a  law  for  its  government,  "  commanding  what  is  right,  and 
prohibiting  what  is  wrong ;  "  then,  whatever  governing  power, 


THE   INFALLIBILITY   OF   THE   CHUKCH.  121 

if  any,  He  placed  in  the  church,  must  embrace  whatever  is  com- 
manded or  prohibited  by  the  law.  The  code  is  mainly  intended 
for  practical  application  in  this  world,  and  is,  therefore,  given 
for  a  certain  end ;  and  the  governing  power  of  the  church  is 
intended  to  execute  the  law  for  the  purpose  had  in  view  by  the 
law  itself.  And  as  there  are  two  kinds  of  obedience  required 
by  the  system,  instead  of  one  only,  and  as  they  are  both  vitally 
important  to  reach  the  end  aimed  at  by  the  law-maker,  whatever 
power  was  left  in  the  church  to  construe  and  apply  the  law, 
must  extend  to  both  these  particulars,  or  the  institution  must 
44  perish  through  its  own  imbecility." 

Every  violation  of  the  law  is  an  offence,  more  or  less  aggra- 
vated, according  to  its  nature,  as  defined  by  the  law  itself. 
Heresy,  which  may  be  defined  as  the  wilful  disbelief  of  an  es- 
sential article  of  faith,  or  the  wilful  belief  of  an  essential  false 
doctrine,  by  one  who  professes  to  be  a  Christian,  is,  therefore, 
an  offence  against  the  system,  for  the  reason  that  the  law  re 
quires  correct  faith,  and  prohibits  a  false  one.  Thus  Christ 
says :  "  He  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned ;"  and  St.  Paul 
speaks  of  heresies  as  offences  against  the  law  of  Christ,  (1  Cor. 
xi.  19;)  and  in  the  fifth  chapter  of  his  Epistle  to  the  Galatians, 
he  says : 

44  Now  the  works  of  the  flesh  are  manifest,  which  are  these : 
adultery,  fornication,  uncleanness,  lasciviousness,  idolatry,  witch- 
craft, hatred,  variance,  emulations,  wrath,  strife,  seditions,  here- 
sies, envyings,  murders,  drunkenness,  revilings,  and  such  like  ; 
of  which  I  tell  you,  as  I  have  also  told  you  in  times  past,  that 
they  which  do  such  things  shall  not  inherit  the  kingdom  of 
God." 

The  language  of  the  apostle  is  clear  and  explicit,  that  those 
offences  exclude  the  guilty  party  from  the  kingdom  of  heaven ; 
and  heresy  is  classed  with  idolatry,  murder,  and  the  other 
offences  mentioned.  And  if  the  judicial  power  of  the  Church 
extends  to  any  one  of  these  offences,  it  must  extend  to  all ;  for, 
to  give  to  associated  men  a  law,  and  a  judiciary  to  construe  this 
law,  and  yet  restrict  its  jurisdiction  to  only  a  part  of  the  code, 
would  seem  to  be  a  solecism  in  government. 
12 


122  THE    INFALLIBILITY    OF   THE    CHURCH. 

§  8.  The  necessity  for  such  a  tribunal  shown  from  the  true  char 
acter  of  Scripture. 

In  the  mind  of  Christ  there  was  no  confusion,  but  all  was  uri' 
clouded  intellectual  day.  But  when  He  came  to  convey  His 
will  through  so  imperfect  and  changeable  a  medium  as  human 
language,  addressed  to  so  frail  a  mind  as  that  of  man,  it  would 
seem  that  certainty  could  not  possibly  be  attained,  under  the 
circumstances,  without  an  infallible  interpreter.*  And  more 
especially,  as  this  law  is  the  most  extensive  and  wonderful  code 
ever  given  to  man,  expressed  in  very  concise  terms,  and  yet  em- 
bracing not  only  plain  and  simple  truths,  but  truths  of  the  most 
sublime  and  abstruse  character  ;  revelations  of  awful  import ;  a 
code  regulating,  in  the  most  perfect  manner,  all  our  duties  in  all 
the  multiplied  relations  of  life,  and  our  whole  duty  to  God ;  re- 
vealing to  us  the  nature  of  angels  and  spiritual  existences ;  giving 
us  glimpses  of  that  heaven  where  the  inspired  Paul  heard  words 
unspeakable,  and  requiring  us,  not  only  to  understand  and  per- 

*  As  to  the  imperfect  and  changeable  character  of  language,  all  intelligent 
writers  are  agreed.  Its  imperfections  are  most  fully  understood  by  statesmen, 
jurists,  and  lawyers.  Before  Courts  of  justice,  where  the  rules  of  investigation 
are  the  most  rigid,  logical,  and  searching,  the  true  character  of  this  medium  is 
best  understood. 

"  Such  is  the  intrinsic  imperfection  of  all  human  language,  that  it  frequently 
becomes  impossible,  from  the  mere  words  alone  of  any  writing,  to  ascertain  the 
meaning  of  the  parties."  (Wheaton's  Law  of  Nations,  3d  ed.,  p.  77,  334.) 

"But  such  is  the  imperfection  of  human  language,  and  the  want  of  technical 
skill  in  the  makers  of  the  law,  that  statutes  often  give  occasion  to  the  most  per- 
plexing doubts  and  discussions,  arising  from  the  ambiguity  that  attends  them." 
(I  Kent,  461.) 

"  The  fluctuating  use  of  words,  which  prevails  in  every  language,  gives  rise 
to  frequent  changes  in  their  meaning."  (Ernesti,  as  quoted  by  Mr.  Rice  in  C.  & 
11 's  Debate,  201.) 

The  learned  Protestant  Bishop  Walton  very  justly  says  : 

"  The  word  of  God  does  not  consist  in  mere  letters,  whether  written  or  print- 
ed,  but  in  the  sense  of  it ;  which  no  one  can  better  interpret  than  the  true  church, 
to  which  Christ  has  committed  this  sacred  pledge."  (Cited  Milner's  End  of 
Con.,  p.  56.) 

"  Let  us  be  persuaded,"  says  St.  Augustine,  "  that  the  gospel  consists  not  in 
the  words,  but  in  the  sense."  (Cited  id.  56.) 

Mr.  Justice  Johnson,  in  his  able  opinion  in  Martin  v.  Hunter's  Lessee,  (J 
Wheaton,  376,)  said  that  "  language  is  essentially  defective  in  precision." 


THE   INFALLIBILITY    OF    THE    CHURCH.  123 

form  all  the  duties  enjoined,  but  to  believe,  with  unfaltering 
faith,  all  these  high  and  holy  words  of  mystery  and  truth.* 

In  the  nature  of  a  supernatural  system,  revealing  to  us  truths 
that  we  never  could  reach  by  the  mightiest  efforts  of  unaided 
reason,  and  prescribing  a  perfect  morality  far  above  all  our  nat- 
ural conceptions  of  justice,  and  embracing  so  many  interests, 
both  temporal  and  eternal,  we  must  expect  to  find  many  truths 
and  duties  of  a  plain  and  simple  character,  and  some  most  dif- 
ficult. If  the  system  be  extensive,  and  assume  to  regulate  many 
interests,  it  must,  of  necessity,  be  more  complex,  or  otherwise 
it  must  be  incomplete.  A  system  of  law  requisite  to  govern  a 
wandering  race  of  men  may  be  very  simple,  for  the  reason  that 
they  have  few  rights  to  protect.  They  have  no  merchants,  and 
they  need  no  bills  of  exchange  ;  they  have  no  lands,  and  need 
no  land  law  ;  they  have  little  or  no  property,  and  need  no  law 
to  protect  that ;  they  have  no  mechanics,  and  need  no  law  of 
lien  ;  they  have  no  steamboats,  no  railroads,  no  telegraphic  lines, 
and  need  no  laws  to  regulate  that  which  they  have  not.  But 
the  moment  a  people  take  to  a  new  branch  of  business,  they 
need,  and  must  have,  a  law  to  protect  it.  And  as  their  employ- 
ments increase,  their  code  of  laws  must  also  be  extended,  and 
in  proportion  as  the  code  is  extended  to  new  objects,  so  is  its 
complexity  increased.  Each  new  subject  gives  rise  to  a  new 
law,  and  each  new  law  gives  rise  to  some  difficult  questions. 
The  Legislature  is  therefore  compelled,  either  to  leave  interests 
unprotected,  or  to  enact  laws  from  time  to  time,  as  these  inter- 
ests increase. 

*  It  is  a  very  common  error  with  many  persons  to  suppose,  that  because  all 
truth,  from  its  very  nature,  is  consistent  and  but  a  unit,  it  must  be  very  simple, 
and  easily  understood.  That  truth  is  never  confused,  as  error  generally  is,  may 
be  assumed  as  an  axiom.  But  it  does  not  follow  from  this  unity  and  consistency 
of  truth,  that  it  is  always  easily  understood,  any  more  than  it  follows,  that  be- 
cause the  first  mechanical  powers  are  simple,  and  many  machines  are  so,  a  clock 
or  a  steam  engine  is  not  a  complex  machine.  As  in  a  perfect,  but  complex  ma- 
chiue,  there  is  a  combination  of  a  great  variety  of  mechanical  contrivances,  all 
operating  together  in  perfect  harmony ;  so,  every  great  system  of  law,  embracing 
a  multiplicity  of  subjects,  must  consist  of  many  truths,  all  united  by  some  lead- 
ing, harmonious  principle. 

The  truths  of  science  are  not  all  simple  and  easily  understood.  It  has  been 
said  by  competent  persons,  that  it  requires  a  man  of  more  than  ordinary  intel 
lect  to  understand  the  discoveries  of  Sir  Isaac  Newton  to  their  full  extent. 


124:  THE    INFALLIBILITY    OF    THE    CHURCH. 

When  we  examine  the  written  word  of  God,  we  find  many 
things  in  it  easy  to  be  understood,  and  some  things  hard  to  be 
understood.  The  narrative  portions,  as  a  general  thing,  are 
plain  and  simple,  but  the  doctrinal  portions  are  more  difficult. 
Let  any  calm,  sincere,  and  clear-headed  reader  examine  th* 
New  Testament  carefully,  without  any  preconceived  system  oi 
faith  in  his  mind,  and  he  must  find  some  things  hard  to  be  under- 
stood. He  will  find  this  fact  apparent  upon  the  face  of  the  record. 

For  example,  in  the  twenty-fourth  chapter  of  St.  Matthew, 
our  Lord  predicts  the  destruction  of  the  Temple  and  many  other 
things,  and  then  says  in  the  twenty-fourth  verse  :  "  Verily  I  say 
unto  you,  this  generation  shall  not  pass,  till  all  these  things  be 
falfilled."  The  same  obscurity  may  be  found  in  the  thirteenth 
chapter  of  Mark. 

"  And  I  say  unto  you,  make  to  yourselves  friends  of  the  mam- 
mon of  unrighteousness;  that  when  ye  fail,  they  may  receive 
you  into  everlasting  habitations."  (Luke  xvi.  9.) 

This  is  put  forth  in  the  form  of  a  command. 

In  the  twenty-second  chapter  of  Luke  our  Saviour  commands 
His  disciples  to  sell  their  garments  and  buy  swords,  and  they 
brought  two  swords,  and  He  said,  "it  is  enough;"  but  when 
Peter  had  used  one  of  the  swords,  our  Lord  reproved  him,  say- 
ing :  "  Put  up  again  thy  sword  into  his  place ;  for  all  they  that 
take  the  sword,  shall  perish  by  the  sword." 

The  accounts  of  the  genealogy  of  our  Lord,  as  found  in  the 
first  of  St.  Matthew,  and  third  of  St.  Luke,  are  difficult  portions 
of  Scripture. 

But  when  the  reader  has  passed  from  the  Gospels  and  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles  to  their  Epistles,  he  will  find  passages  hard 
to  understand,  especially  in  those  of  St.  Paul,  particularly  in 
that  to  the  Romans.  I  have  often  read  that  Epistle  attentively, 
and  I  confess  there  are  some  things  in  it  hard  to  understand, 
even  after  all  the  explanations  that  have  ever  been  given.  In 
the  third,  fourth,  seventh,  eighth,  and  ninth  chapters,  the  apos- 
tle seems  to  preach  predestination,  and  justification  by  faith 
only  ;  and  especially  when,  in  the  ninth  chapter,  he  compares 
God  to  the  potter,  and  man  to  the  clay. 

In  the  Old  Testament  many  passages  occur  which  are  ob- 
scure. The  sixty-eighth  Psalm  and  the  last  chapter  of  Eccle- 


THE   INFALLIBILITY   OF   THE   CHURCH.  125 

siastes  are  so.  In  the  twelfth  chapter  of  Exodus  we  are  told 
that  the  children  of  Israel  "  borrowed  jewels  of  silver,  and  jew- 
els of  gold,  and  raiment,  and  spoiled  the  Egyptians." 

These  are  only  portions  of  the  obscurities  of  Holy  Writ. 
They  are  undeniable,  and  no  man  among  Protestants  has  more 
clearly  and  forcibly  expressed  himself  than  Dr.  Balguy,  a  learned 
English  Divine,  of  the  established  Church  : 

"  But  what  will  you  reply  is  all  this  to  Christians  ? — to 
those  who  see,  by  a  clear  and  strong  light,  the  dispensation  oi 
God  to  mankind  ?  We  are  '  not  as  those  who  have  no  hope. 
The  day-spring  from,  on  high  hath  visited  us.  The  Spirit  of 
God  shall  lead  us  into  att  truth?  To  this  delusive  dream  of 
human  folly,  founded  only  on  a  mistaken  interpretation  of  Scrip- 
ture, I  answer  in  one  word :  open  your  Bibles ;  take  the  firsl 
page  in  either  Testament,  and  tell  me,  without  disguise,  is  there 
nothing  in  it  too  hard  for  you  to  understand  ?  If  you  find  al) 
before  you  clear  and  easy,  you  may  thank  God  for  giving  you  a 
privilege  which  He  has  denied  to  many  thousands  of  sincere 
believers."  (Discourses,  133.) 

§  9.  The  same  subject  further  considered. 

But  while  this  learned  and  candid  Divine  makes  these  truth- 
ful admissions,  which  militate  so  much  against  the  entire  theory 
of  Protestant  individual  interpretation  in  the  last  resort,  Bishop 
Porteus,  ChiUingworth,  Dr.  Spring,  Mr.  Rice,  and  most  other 
Protestant  writers,  insist  that  the  Bible  is  clear  as  to  all  matters 
essential. 

The  position  that  Christianity  is  predicated  upon  a  few  sim- 
ple facts  and  commands,  and  that  the  Bible  containing  these  is 
clear  and  plain,  is  indispensably  necessary  to  sustain  the  funda- 
mental principle  of  private  interpretation.  Christ  certainly  re- 
vealed but  one  system  of  truth,  intended  to  be  believed  and 
practised  by  all ;  and  He  made  no  distinctions  in  His  code  be- 
tween one  essential  truth  and  another,  but  He  commanded  His 
apostles  to  teach  all  things  whatsoever  He  commanded  them, 
and  then  said  that  "  he  that  believeth/'  &c.,  and  "  he  that  be- 
lieveth  not,"  &c.  Under  a  system  of  individual  construction, 
the  inexorable  laws  of  logic  compel  its  advocates  to  reduce  the 
truths  of  faith  to  the  fewest  number,  and  those  of  the  most  gen- 


126  THE   INFALLIBILITY    OF   THE   CHURCH. 

eral  and  simple  character.  The  Scriptures,  as  a  matter  of  course, 
must  also  be  held  entirely  simple,  so  as  to  be  understood,  in  all 
needful  particulars,  by  all  persons. 

But  in  opposition  to  this  levelling  process,  cannot  the  same 
end  be  accomplished  by  elevating  the  judgment  and  capacity 
of  each  individual  by  the  aid  of  the  same  infallible  interpreter, 
able  at  all  times  to  explain  and  apply  all  portions  of  the  law, 
whether  plain,  or  hard  to  be  understood  ?  This  theory  places 
all  persons  of  every  grade  of  intellect  upon  the  same  footing, 
elevating  all  to  the  same  infallible  standard  of  interpretation, 
and  to  the  same  conceptions  of  the  sublime  truths  of  the  sys- 
tem, without  violating  any  rule  of  logic,  justice,  or  common 
sense,  and  without  being  in  conflict  with  the  evident  character 
of  the  Scriptures,  and  their  own  express  words. 

It  is  true  that  we  must  first  understand  a  proposition  before 
we  can  either  believe  or  disbelieve  it.  But  there  is  a  marked 
difference  between  understanding  and  comprehending.  A  man 
may  understand  the  point  settled  by  a  decision  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States,  and  believe  it  just,  simply  upon  the 
ground  of  authority,  without  comprehending  the  reasons  given 
to  sustain  it.  We  know  that  we  exist — that  we  have  the 
power  of  voluntary  locomotion — that  our  mere  will  puts  our 
bodies  in  action ;  but  we  cannot  comprehend  why  this  is  so. 
So,  if  the  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence  be  admitted  for  the 
sake  of  the  argument,  the  simplest  capacity  can  understand  the 
simple  proposition,  "  this  is  my  body ; ''  while  the  greatest  in- 
tellect cannot  comprehend  the  nature  of  the  mystery.  As  our 
Lord  required  belief,  and  not  comprehension,  when  we  under- 
stand simply  the  truth  proposed  and  believe  it,  we  fulfil  the  law, 
whether  we  comprehend  the  reasons  for  it  or  not. 

Dr.  Spring  says :  "  The  Bible  is  a  plain  book,  and  easily  un- 
derstood." (Dis.  36.) 

"  We  agree,"  says  Mr.  Rice,  "  that  the  Bible,  especially  on 
all  important  points,  is  a  plain  book."  (C.  &R.'s  Debate,  132.) 

But  is  this  true  ?  Is  it  compatible  with  reason — the  nature 
of  all  law— or  the  Bible  ? 

It  is  a  little  difficult,  I  apprehend,  upon  principles  of  sound 
reasoning,  for  men  to  say  that  what  they  do  not  understand  is 
unnecessary  to  be  understood.  Professing  to  take  their  faith 


THE    INFALLIBILITY    OF    THE    CHURCH. 

and  morals  from  the  Scriptures  in  the  sense  each  individual  puts 
upon  the  written  law,  and  coming  upon  undeniable  difficulties 
they  are  forced  to  admit,  they  presume  to  make  a  distinction 
between  those  portions  that  are  material  and  those  not  mate- 
rial ;  and  in  doing  this,  each  one  makes  his  individual  capacity 
to  understand  or  not  to  understand  the  Scriptures,  the  standard 
by  which  to  measure  the  materiality  or  immateriality  of  the  dif- 
ferent provisions  of  this  inflexible  and  positive  code  of  law. 
And  if  the  Scriptures  contain  the  entire  code  now  obligatory, 
as  assumed,  it  must  have  all  been  written,  it  would  seem,  with 
the  intent  to  be  understood  ;  otherwise  there  was  no  necessity 
for  its  being  written.  But  conceding,  for  the  sake  of  the  argu- 
ment, that  portions  of  the  Bible  are  idle  and  immaterial,  it  is 
assuming  an  awrful  responsibility  to  decide  what  portions  are 
material  and  what  not. 

But  it  must  be  apparent  to  every  sensible  reader  of  the 
Bible,  that  the  most  difficult  portions  are  those  relating  to  doc- 
trines that  must  be  believed,  and  to  moral  duties  that  must  be 
put  in  practice.  And  wre  are  not  left  alone  to  arrive  at  this 
conclusion  from  the  numerous  instances  of  obscurity  that  exist 
upon  the  face  of  the  Scriptures  ;  but  we  are  plainly  told  by  the 
apostle  Peter,  that  such  is  the  fact  with  reference  to  material 
portions  of  the  Written  Word.  The  apostle,  speaking  of  the 
Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  says :  "  In  which  are  some  things  hard  to 
be  understood,  which  they  that  are  unlearned  and  unstable, 
wrest,  as  they  do  the  other  Scriptures,  unto  their  own  destruc- 
tion." (2  Peter  iii.  15,  16.) 

Dr.  Spring  says,  "  easily  understood,"  and  St.  Peter  says, 
"  hard  to  be  understood."  Which  is  right — the  apostle  or  ths 
Protestant  ?  So,  Mr.  Rice  says  plain,  while  St.  Peter  says  oth- 
erwise. 

If  any  portions  of  the  Scripture  are  plain,  they  are  the  nar- 
rative portions ;  for  the  reason  that  a  narrative  of  facts  is  the 
most  simple  form  of  composition.  Now  the  apostle  here  asserts 
two  simple  facts :  first,  that  there  are  some  things  in  St.  Paul's 
Epistles  hard  to  be  understood  /  and  second,  that  the  unlearned 
and  unstable  wrest  these  things  hard  to  be  understood,  as  they 
do  the  other  Scriptures,  to  their  own  destruction.  And  these 
things  were  not  only  hard  to  be  understood,  but  they  were 


128  THE    INFALLIBILITY    OF    THE    CHURCH. 

important  and  necessary  to  be  believed,  because,  if  wiested 
from  their  true  meaning,  they  led  to  destruction,  just  in  the 
same  way  as  did  the  misconstruction  of  other  portions  of  Scrip- 
ture. So  far  from  the  apostle  making  any  distinction  between 
material  and  immaterial  portions  of  Scripture,  he  does  make  a 
distinction  between  those  easy,  and  those  hard  to  be  understood, 
and  conclusively  establishes  the  materiality  of  both. 

That  the  great  and  overwhelming  majority  of  men,  in  every 
age  and  country,  who  rely  alone  upon  their  individual  judgment, 
belong  either  to  the  class  of  unlearned  or  unstable,  would  seem 
to  need  no  proof.  If  it  did,  it  is  conclusively  shown  among 
Protestants,  from  the  fact  of  so  many  different  parties  existing 
among  them,  who  can  never  understand  the  plain  Bible  alike. 
Whatever  may  be  their  worldly  and  literary  knowledge,  they 
are  not  learned  and  stable  in  the  sense  of  the  apostle ;  other- 
wise, there  could  not  exist  the  five  hundred  different  sects  in 
Protestant  Christendom.  And  the  more  earnestly  and  emphat- 
ically they  contend  that  the  Scriptures  are  plain  and  easily  un- 
derstood in  all  important  points,  the  more  powerfully  do  they 
condemn  themselves  for  those  divisions  so  utterly  inconsistent 
with  right  reason  and  the  united  and  consistent  law  of  Christ. 

§  10.   Causes  of  the  obscurity  of  the  Scriptures. 

There  are  many  causes  for  the  obscurity  of  the  Scriptures. 

1.  The  extent  and  sublime  nature  of  the  system  of  law  there- 
in contained. 

2.  The  mysterious  nature  and  uncertain  language  of  proph- 
ecy in  general. 

3.  The  peculiar  customs  and  modes  of  speech  common  among 
the  Hebrews. 

4.  The  peculiar  style  common  with  the  sacred  writers. 

5.  The  absence  of  scientific  arrangement,  in  the  admixture 
of  simple  narratives  of  fact,  with  statements  of  the  most  difficult 
doctrines. 

These  causes  of  obscurity  are  mostly  peculiar  to  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  are  not  generally  found  in  other  writings. 

But  there  exists  a  difficulty  in  the  construction  and  applica- 
tion of  the  Scriptures,  that  must,  in  the  nature  of  things,  exist 
in  every  code  of  law,  however  extensive  or  limited  it  may  be. 


THE   INFALLIBILITY   OF   THE   CHURCH.  129 

And  this  difficulty  is  greater  in  the  Christian  than  in  the  civil 
code,  for  the  reason  that  the  former  embraces  a  much  larger 
sphere  of  duties,  contemplates  ends  much  more  important  and 
enduring,  and  relates  to  objects  more  sublime,  varied,  and  dif- 
ficult. And  this  difficulty  cannot  be  avoided  by  any  possible 
accuracy  of  language  or  scientific  arrangement,  although  it  may 
be  modified  by  such  accuracy  to  some  extent.  But  after  all  the 
possible  clearness  and  accuracy  in  the  statement  of  the  provi- 
sions of  such  a  code,  and,  indeed,  of  every  code, .  thece  must 
arise  great  and  serious  difficulties  in  the  application  even  of  the 
most  clear  and  familiar  principles.  The  difficulty  exists  in  the  ap- 
plication of  the  principle  to  cases  that  come  up  for  adjudication. 
The  great  leading  principles  of  the  law  of  the  land  are  ex- 
pressed in  language  as  accurate  and  certain,  as  centuries  of  dis- 
cussion and  examination  by  the  most  acute  and  powerful  minds 
in  the  world,  could  possibly  enable  them  to  select ;  and  these 
principles  are  as  familiar  to  our  courts  as  time,  experience,  and 
study  could  make  them.  And  yet  it  is  a  well-known  fact,  that 
lew  cases  of  the  most  perplexing  character  arise  in  our  courts 
every  day,  that  are  ultimately  determined  by  the  legitimate  ap- 
plication and  extension  of  these  old  and  familiar  principles.  And 
this  difficulty  arises,  not  from  the  want  of  certainty  in  the  state- 
ment of  a  principle ;  not  from  any  avoidable  ambiguity  in  the 
language ;  and  not  from  ignorance  of  the  principle  itself;  but 
it  arises  from  the  uncertainty  whether  a  given  state  of  case 
comes  within  the  principle.  Is  a  certain  act,  or  a  certain  state 
of  case,  a  violation  of  a  certain  principle,  or  of  several  principles 
combined  ?  This  is  the  difficulty.* 

*  One  of  the  most  remarkable  instances  of  the  difficulty  met  in  the  applica- 
tion of  the  provisions  of  a  statute,  drawn  up  with  consummate  ability  and  great 
care,  is  to  be  found  in  the  celebrated  Statute  of  Frauds,  passed  by  the  British 
Parliament  in  the  reign  of  Charles  II.  It  is  a  statute  containing  only  a  few  sec- 
tions, and  one  of  the  sections  that  has  given  rise  to  so  much  difficulty  in  its  ap- 
plication to  cases  coming  under  the  principle,  is  as  follows  : 

.  "  Sec.  17.  That  no  contract  for  the  sale  of  any  goods,  wares,  and  merchan- 
dises, for  the  price  of  ten  pounds  sterling  or  upwards,  shall  be  allowed  to  be  good, 
except  the  buyer  shall  accept  part  of  the  goods  so  sold,  and  actually  receive  the 
same,  or  give  something  in  earnest  to  bind  the  bargain,  or  in  part  payment, 
or  that  some  note  or  memorandum  in  writing  of  the  said  bargain  be  made  and 

13 


130  THE   INFALLIBILITY    OF    THE    CHURCH. 

And  this  difficulty  arises  from  the  nature  of  all  law,  the  im- 
perfection of  the  human  mind,  and  the  new  and  varied  circum- 
stances constantly  arising  in  the  progress  of  human  affairs.  Con- 
stitutions and  codes  of  law,  from  their  nature,  can  only  lay  down 
principles,  and  cannot  specify  the  circumstances  of  each  particu- 
lar case.  As  a  general  thing,  several  classes  of  cases  are  em- 
braced under  each  principle.*  It  often  happens  that  a  case  must 
be  determined  by  the  legitimate  and  harmonious  application  of 
several  different  principles ;  and  although  the  principles  them- 
selves are  clearly  laid  down  and  well  understood,  yet  to  apply 
them  to  these  new  cases  is,  indeed,  a  very  serious  task.  Statute 
laws  go  more  into  detail  than  written  constitutions.  They  are 
more  full  and  minute,  but  still  they  are  at  last  confined  to  a  mere 
statement  of  principles,  which  the  courts  can  only  apply  to  cases 
coming  within  the  principles  laid  down  in  the  statute. 

For  instance,  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  was 
framed  by  men  of  the  most  eminent  ability,  and  of  the  most  un- 
questioned integrity.  They  were  great  jurists,  lawyers,  and 
statesmen,  and  they  gave  to  the  instrument  all  the  certainty  and 
accuracy  attainable  by  them.  Yet,  immediately  after  the  adop- 
tion of  the  Constitution,  a  very  able  work,  the  Federalist,  was 
written  by  Mr.  Madison  and  others,  for  the  purpose  of  render- 
ing its  provisions  more  clear.  Since  that  day,  discussions  in 
Congress,  in  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  and  in 
the  courts  of  every  State  in  the  Union,  and  by  the  greatest 

signed  by  the  parties  to  be  charged  by  such  contract,  or  their  agents  thereunto 
lawfully  authorized." 

The  different  questions  arising  under  this  section  would  surprise  any  one  not 
acquainted  with  legal  proceedings,  and  the  difficulty  of  applying  very  plain  Ian  - 
guage  to  cases  as  they  arise.  My  limits  will  not  allow  any  notice  of  all  the  vari- 
ous questions  raised  and  decided  under  this  section.  What  constitutes  a  signing 
of  the  note  or  memorandum  would  seem  to  be  the  plainest  question  that  could 
arise  under  the  section.  Still,  very  difficult  questions  have  arisen  regarding  the 
signing.  A  memorandum  in  the  defendant's  handwriting,  beginning  "  I,  James 
Crockford,  agree  to  sell,  &c.,"  but  not  subscribed  by  him,  was  held  to  be  good 
under  the  statute.  "  A  bill  of  parcels,  in  which  the  name  of  the  seller  was  print- 
ed, and  that  of  the  purchaser  written  by  the  seller,  was  held  a  sufficient  memoran- 
dum to  charge  the  seller.''  (Long  on  Sales,  37.) 

*  The  Supreme  Court  U.  S.  decided  that  a  Constitution,  from  its  nature,  deals 
in  generals,  not  details.  (2  Con.  Rep.,  190.) 


THE   INFALLIBILITY    OF   THE   CHURCH.  131 

men  of  the  country,  have  still  left  many  questions  in  painful 
doubt  and  uncertainty.*  And  this  diversity  of  views  has  npt 
arisen  so  much  from  any  avoidable  ambiguity  in  the  language 
of  the  Constitution,  as  from  the  difficulty  of  applying  its  provi- 
sions to  the  new  and  complicated  cases  that  have  arisen  from 
time  to  time. 

Among  the  many  provisions  of  that  instrument,  which  are 
stated  in  language  as  definite  and  certain  as  any  that  could,  per- 
haps, be  selected,  and  yet  has  given  rise  to  many  decisions  and 
conflicting  opinions  among  legislators  and  jurists,  is  that  part 
of  the  tenth  section  of  the  first  article,  which  provides  that  "  no 
State  shall  pass  any  law  impairing  the  obligation  of  contracts." 
The  word  contract,  as  a  legal  term,  is  very  accurate,  and  well 
understood.!  And  yet  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States 
has  been  compelled  to  decide  many  acts  of  the  Legislatures  of 
different  States  unconstitutional  under  this  prohibition.  New 
questions  arise  under  this  provision  and  the  Acts  of  the  State 
Legislatures  continually,  and  will,  most  probably,  for  many  years 
to  come.  The  varied  cases  arising  under  this  single  provision 
of  the  Constitution,  which  apparently  seems  so  clear  and  simple, 
go  to  show,  what  every  jurist  and  lawyer  knows,  that  one  of 
the  chief  difficulties  in  the  construction  and  administration  of 
law  often  arises  in  the  application  of  a  familiar  principle.  And 
these  new  and  difficult  cases  must  continue  to  arise,  with  dimin- 
ished frequency,  so  long  as  the  government  lasts.  A  new  and 
very  perplexing  case  arose  a  few  years  since,  if  I  remember  cor- 
rectly, in  negotiating  the  treaty  of  Washington,  in  reference  to 
the  power  of  the  President  and  Senate  to  make  a  treaty  affect- 
ing the  boundary  of  a  State  ;  and  it  was  thought  at  least  more 
safe  to  obtain  the  consent  of  the  State  whose  boundary  was  in 
question. 

*  Many  thousands  of  pages  have  been  written  by  the  most  eminent  men  of  the 
nation,  to  explain  the  meaning  of  a  short  instrument,  filling  some  nine  or  ten 
pages  only.  Mr.  Justice  Story's  Commentaries  upon  the  Constitution  alone  fill 
some  thirteen  hundred  pages.  If  the  clearness  of  a  code  depended  upon  its  con- 
ciseness, then  the  Constitution  would  all  be  plain  and  easily  understood. 

f  A  contract  is  a  voluntary  agreement,  between  competent  parties,  for  a  good 
consideration,  to  do  or  not  to  do  a  specified  thing,  which  may  be  lawfully  done 
or  omitted. 


132  THE   INFALLIBILITY    OF   THE   CHURCH. 

If  we  take  up  the  New  Testament,  and  exclude  the  narrative 
portions  of  the  Gospels  and  the  Acts,  and  the  local  and  argu- 
mentative portions  of  the  Epistles,  and  all  repetitions  in  each, 
we  shall  find  a  very  small  space  occupied  by  the  provisions  of 
the  written  law  of  Christianity.  Yet  this  code  embraces  much 
more  than  any  human  system,  and  yet  so  concisely  are  its  lead- 
ing principles  stated,  that  they  occupy  a  very  small  space.  If  a 
careful  selection  were  made  of  all  the  doctrinal  texts,  and  they 
were  all  put  together,  it  would  be  apparent  that  a  very  small 
volume  would  contain  a  very  extensive  code. 

If,  then,  the  Christian  code  embraces  a  more  extensive  range 
of  duties  than  any  municipal  code ;  and,  like  all  other  codes, 
only  lays  down  principles,  and  does  not  attempt  to  decide  each 
case  in  detail,  it  would  seem  reasonable  that  we  must  expect  as 
great,  if  not  greater  difficulties  to  arise  in  the  application  of  its 
great  principles,  than  those  we  meet  in  the  practical  application 
of  the  laws  of  civil  government.  We  would  naturally  anticipate 
that  the  pride,  the  ingenuity,  the  ambition  of  men,  as  well  as 
the  honest  mistakes  of  a  zeal  not  according  to  knowledge, 
would  bring  up  many  questions  of  the  most  perplexing  charac- 
ter, giving  rise  to  a  great  variety  of  views,  in  the  absence  of 
some  common  and  competent  tribunal  to  decide  all  questions 
for  all  parties. 

And  if  we  take  up,  and  carefully  examine,  the  New  Testa- 
ment narrative,  concise  as  it  is,  we  shall  find,  that  even  at  that 
early  day,  difficulties  arose  at  every  step,  in  the  application  of 
its  principles.  While  the  twelve  were  with  Christ,  we  find  our 
Lord  often  upbraiding  them  for  their  want  of  faith,  and  their 
slowness  to  understand.  Repeated  explanations  were  given  by 
our  Lord  to  his  apostles,  who  heard  all  his  instructions,  and 
witnessed  all  His  miracles.  They  did  not  even  understand  that 
He  was  to  rise  again  from  the  dead,  until  after  the  happening 
of  that  event.  We  are  surprised  to  find  this  proneness  to  un- 
belief, and  this  dulness  of  apprehension,  in  the  chosen  apostles, 
after  all  they  had  seen  and  heard ;  and  we  are  very  naturally 
inclined  to  pay  ourselves  the  happy  compliment  to  think  that 
we  should  have  been,  under  such  wonderful  circumstances,  much 
more  docile,  confiding,  and  apt  to  understand.  But  in  coming 
to  this  conclusion  we  show  a  very  imperfect  appreciation  of  the 


THE    INFALLIBILITY    OF    THE    CHURCH.  133 

difficulties  that  must  attend  the  individual  investigation  of  a 
system  so  mysterious  and  sublime ;  and  we  exhibit  a  very  inac- 
curate conception  of  the  weakness  and  frailty  of  the  human 
mind.  For,  after  ages  of  experience,  and  after  the  greatest 
critics  have  written  more  upon  the  construction  of  this  small, 
but  wonderful  volume,  than  upon  any  other  one  subject  in  the 
world,  the  same  difficulties  in  the  way  of  individual  examina- 
tion still  exist ;  and  not  only  so,  but  they  increase  with  time ; 
so  that  those  who  rely  upon  their  individual  construction,  are 
divided  into  more  numerous  parties  than  ever. 

We  find  that  notwithstanding  the  apostles  were  commanded 
by  Christ  to  "  go  teach  all  nations,"  as  St.  Matthew  has  re- 
corded it,  or  "  go  into  all  the  world  and  preach  the  gospel  to 
every  creature,"  as  St.  Mark  has  it,  it  required  a  special  inter- 
position of  Providence  to  induce  St.  Peter  to  admit  Cornelius, 
the  Gentile,  into  the  Kingdom  of  Christ.  There  were  Jews 
resident  in  every  country  in  the  known  world,  and  the  apostles 
construed  the  commission  as  only  extending  to  them ;  and  up 
to  the  time  of  the  conversion  of  Cornelius,  although  thousands 
of  Jews  had  embraced  the  faith,  no  uncircumcised  person  had 
been  admitted  into  the  church. 

The  question  that  arose  about  circumcision,  and  led  to  the 
Council  of  Jerusalem,  was  a  judicial  question,  and  the  difficulty 
existing  in  the  case,  was  the  application  of  admitted  principles 
and  facts.  None  of  the  apostles  assumed  to  have  had  any  direct 
and  special  inspiration  in  reference  to  the  particular  case.  This 
instance  is  one  which  shows  that  cases  may  often  be  decided  by 
logical  conclusions,  drawn  from  facts  previously  existing.  Many 
most  important  doctrines  of  Scripture  are  formed  from  a  patient 
and  logical  application  and  extension  of  several  different  princi- 
ples. Thus,  for  example,  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  can  only 
be  deduced  from  the  „ comprehensive  and  harmonious  interpre- 
tation of  different  passages  combined.  We  shall  have  occasion 
to  speak  more  at  length  of  the  decision  of  the  Council  of  Jeru- 
salem in  another  place. 

We  may  remark  here,  that  the  conciseness  of  a  code  of  law 
will  not  render  its  construction  easy,  unless  it  embrace  but  a 
very  few  subjects.  As  we  have  before  stated  in  substance, 
the  extent  of  a  just  code  of  law,  depends  upon  the  number  of 


134  THE    INFALLIBILITY    OF    THE    CHURCH. 

rights  protected,  and  interests  regulated.  However  concise  the 
form,  in  which  the  code  may  be  delivered,  the  wants  of  the 
people  governed  will  remain  the  same ;  and,  if  these  wants 
be  numerous,  the  more  concise  the  form  of  the  code,  the  more 
difficult  it  must  be  to  carry  out  in  practice,  as  a  general  thing. 
A  radical  principle  may  be  laid  down,  embracing  a  number  of 
subordinate  principles  flowing  from  it ;  and  in  such  cases,  this 
principle  must  be  extended  in  practice,  to  meet  the  circum- 
stances of  each  particular  case.  Thus  our  Lord  said  that  all  the 
law  and  the  prophets  hung  upon  two  commandments  ;  yet  other 
commandments  were  necessary. 

From  these,  and  other  examples,  that  may  be  found  in  the 
New  Testament,  it  is  apparent,  that  in  the  days  of  the  apostles 
numerous  difficult  judicial  questions  arose  at  intervals,  in  the 
application  of  conceded  principles  to  particular  cases,  requiring 
the  decision  of  the  governing  power  of  the  church  to  settle 
them.  And  if  we  follow  down  the  stream  of  events,  after  the 
days  of  the  apostles,  we  shall  find  new  questions  often  arising, 
from  age  to  age,  and  requiring  the  application  of  the  law  to  the 
facts  and  circumstances  of  each  new  case,  as  it  arose.  We  are 
informed,  that  in  the  days  of  persecution,  many  of  the  early 
Christians  yielded  to  the  tortures,  and  denied  the  faith.  After- 
wards they  repented  and  wished  to  return  to  the  church.  Two 
questions  first  arose  under  this  new  state  of  things  :  1.  Whether 
they  could  be  received  again  into  the  church  under  any  circum- 
stances. 2.  Whether,  if  received,  they  were  to  be  re-baptized. 
Between  that  time  and  the  Reformation,  many  other  questions 
arose  for  the  first  time ;  and  at,  and  after  that  event,  many  new 
questions  appeared,  and  many  will  most  likely  arise  in  the  fu- 
ture. All  these  multiplied  questions  must  be  decided  by  the 
extension  and  application  of  pre-existing  principles  laid  down  in 
the  law. 

§  11.  That  the  right  of  revolution  cannot  exist  in  the  members 
of  the  church. 

If  it  be  conceded  or  proved,  that  whatever  governing  power 
was  left  by  Christ  to  be  exercised  by  the  officers  of  the  church, 
must  embrace  whatever  was  commanded  or  prohibited  by  the 


THE   INFALLIBILITY    OF   THE   CHURCH.  135 

law  of  this  institution — that  certainty*  as  to  the  true  construc- 
tion of  the  code  is  indispensable — that  the  Scriptures  contain 
obscurities  peculiar  to  them,  as  well  as  those  common  to  every 
code  of  law — and  that  those  things  hard  to  be  understood  must 
still  be  understood — does  it  not  follow  most  logically  that  there 
is  the  same  necessity  and  propriety  for  the  judicial  power  of  the 
church  to  be  guided  by  the  same  infallible  Spirit  that  guided 
and  controlled  the  legislative  power  necessary  to  complete  the 
code  ?  In  other  words,  in  constituting  and  administering  a 
government  for  a  vast  collective  body  of  men,  intended  to  em- 
brace all  nations,  and  kindreds,  and  tongues,  and  to  exist  in 
perfect  unity,  in  all  ages  and  for  all  time  to  come,  should  not 
the  exercise  of  the  legislative  and  judicial  powers  of  government 
be  guided  alike  by  the  same  Infallible  Power  ? 

The  people  who  found  a  civil  government  constitute  the 
sovereign  power.  They  are  the  source  from  whence  all  the 
powers  of  the  institution  immediately  flow.  Being  the  founders 
of  the  government,  they  give  to  it  such  form  and  powers  as  in 
their  wisdom  they  deem  best.  When  instituted,  the  govern- 
ment is  only  their  agent  to  act  for  them.  In  organizing  the 
same,  they  act  in  their  collective  capacity.  The  lawful  and  valid 
acts  of  the  government  are  the  acts  of  the  people,  in  their  united 
capacity.  But  laws  are  executed  upon  individuals,  in  their  in- 
dividual  capacity.  Hence  an  individual  citizen  or  subject  can- 
not lawfully  resist  the  execution  of  a  law  in  his  individual  ca- 
pacity. Nor  can  any  number  of  individuals,  separately  or 
combined,  do  this  lawfully,  so  long  as  the  system  itself  shall 
last.  The  same  power  that  created  the  government  may  amend 
it,  either  in  the  mode  pointed  out  by  the  fundamental  law,  or 
they  may  do  so  by  exercising  the  right  of  revolution  in  extreme 
cases.  But  in  both  cases  the  right  rests  in  the  fact  that  the 
sovereign  power  exists  in  the  founders  of  the  government ;  and 
they  who  created  may  destroy  or  change,  when  sufficient  rea- 
sons exist  therefor,  and  of  the  sufficiency  of  these  reasons  they 
have  the  political  right  to  determine.  The  founders  can  resume 
the  powers  they  originally  conferred  upon  their  agent,  whenever 
there  exists,  in  their  opinion,  :t  sufficient  cause  for  it. 

*  Dr.  Spring  has  well  said,  "  The  human  mind  reluctantly  rests  short  of  cer- 
tainty. Indeed,  without  this  it  does  not  rest  at  alL"  (Dissertation.) 


136  THE   INFALLIBILITY   OF   THE    CHUKOT. 

But  it  follows,  from  this  fundamental  principle,  that  this 
right  of  revolution  does  not  and  cannot  exist  in  the  Church. 
Christ  was  the  sole  and  only  founder.  It  is  compared  to  a 
kingdom,  not  to  a  republic.  The  right  to  institute  this  govern 
inent  was  not,  therefore,  derived  from  the  consent  of  the  gov- 
erned. The  consent  of  the  governed  can  properly  be  required 
only  when  the  parties  governed  constitute  the  sovereign  power. 
In  other  words,  when  partners  institute  a  government  for  them- 
selves, the  consent  of  a  majority  is  requisite.  But  not  so  when 
a  government  is  instituted  by  a  superior  being  for  an  inferior. 
Whatever  laws  Christ  gave  His  Church,  and  whatever  powers 
of  government  He  bestowed  upon  her,  must  remain  unchanged, 
unless  changed  in  pursuance  of  some  provision  of  the  law  itself. 
And  if  no  such  provision  exists,  then  such  change  cannot  be 
made.* 

*  Civil  government  is  properly  a  political  partnership,  in  which  each  is  equal 
as  a  partner,  and  not  equal  as  an  independent  individual.  Partners  are  always 
hound  by  the  acts  of  each  other  in  that  capacity,  and  when  they  act  as  such 
partners  their  acts  affect  their  co-partners.  When  they  act  as  partners  they  act 
for  the  society.  Hence,  in  the  contemplation  of  the  theory  of  political  govern- 
ment, the  right  to  institute  it  resides  with  the  majority  as  the  organs  of  the 
whole,  and  the  minority  must  submit,  whether  they  think  it  best  to  institute 
government  or  not.  Such  is  the  theory,  but  in  practice  there  are  exceptions ; 
for  the  law  of  force  is  often  resorted  to,  and  the  minority  constitute  the  govern- 
ment and  control  it. 

When  civil  government  is  formed,  and  offices  created,  the  powers  of  the  gov- 
ernment are  exercised,  in  the  contemplation  of  the  theory,  by  these  officers,  who 
act  independently  of  the  will  of  individuals.  Consequently,  individuals,  whether 
many  or  few,  so  long  as  the  government  remains  unchanged,  must  submit  to  th« 
decisions  of  the  admitted  tribunals.  There  is  no  such  thing  known  in  any  sort 
of  government  as  the  right  of  the  individual  governed  to  construe,  in  the  last  re- 
sort, the  law  intended  for  his  own  government.  Such  a  right  in  individuals  at 
once  destroys  all  practical,  as  well  as  theoretical  government.  The  two  never 
can  coexist.  I  cannot  form  a  conception  of  any  possible  system,  in  which  individ- 
uals can  be  governed,  and  yet  construe  the  law  for  themselves  in  the  last  resort. 

The  relation  that  Protestants  bear  to  each  other,  and  to  the  law  of  Christian- 
ity, under  the  logical  application  of  their  fundamental  rule,  is  very  different  from 
that  which  individuals  sustain  to  each  other,  and  to  the  laws,  under  civil  institu- 
tions. For  if  the  relation  was  the  same,  the  independent  and  personal  right  of 
private  interpretation  in  the  last  resort  could  not  exist ;  but  the  will  of  the  law- 
maker, as  determined  by  the  officers  created  by  Him,  would  govern.  And  the 
whole  question,  under  any  logical  view  of  it,  resolves  itself  into  this :  Was  Christ 


THE    INFALLIBILITY    OF   THE    CHURCH.  137 

If,  then,  Christ  left  the  governing  power  in  the  Church  to 
be  exercised  by  mere  fallible  men  not  guided  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  commanded  His  followers  to  obey  these  officers  with- 
out any  condition  or  reservation,  then  the  right  of  revolution 
was  left  practically  in  the  Church  ;  for  these  officers,  who  were 
to  be  implicitly  obeyed,  would  be  liable  at  any  time  to  err,  and, 
in  the  end,  would  err,  and  thus  change  the  system  in  many  of 
its  essential  features.  If,  on  the  contrary,  conditions  and  reser- 
vations were  supposed  to  have  been  made,  to  be  judged  of  by 
the  parties  governed,  the  same  imminent  practical  power  and 
danger  of  revolution  would  exist  in  the  institution.  The  liability 
to  err,  and  the  danger  of  error,  would,  in  the  latter  case,  be 

a  lawgiver,  and  "did  He  organize  a  visible,  perpetual,  united,  and  universal  church, 
and  give  to  it  any  law,  and  any  powers  Of  government  ?  If  so,  those  powers  of 
government  must,  of  necessity,  be  supreme  over  individuals,  and  the  right  to 
construe  and  apply  the  law  must  be  among  the  powers  given. 

Most  Protestants  admit  that  there  is  a  positive  law  given  for  the  government 
of  Christians,  and  this  admission,  taken  in,  connection  with  their  fundamental 
rule,  makes  the  relation  they  sustain  to  each  other  and  to  the  law  the  same  that 
independent  sovereignties  bear  to  each  other,  under  the  law  of  nations.  The 
law  of  nations  is  a  code  admitted  to  exist  in  theory,  by  each  civilized  nation  ; 
but  there  being  no  common  tribunal  to  construe  and  apply  it,  each  sovereignty  is 
left  to  construe  for  itself.  The  insult  is,  as  we  might  readily  suppose,  that  while 
in  theory  this  code  is  admitted  by  all,  there  is  no  uniformity  of  decision,  and  the 
code  becomes  necessarily  powerless  to  settle  disputes,  and  ceases  to  be  a  code  of 
law  in  fact.  The  main  practical  effect  has  been  to  mitigate  the  mode  of  war,  not 
to  prevent  it ;  consequently,  civilized,  as  well  as  semi-civilized  and  barbarous  na- 
tions, carry  on  war  with  each  other,  to  the  extent  of  their  means  and  power. 
War  is  an  expensive  game  in  blood  and  treasure ;  and  civilized  nations  have  not 
only  warred  to  the  extent  of  their  existing  means,  but  nearly  all  of  them  have 
anticipated  the  means  of  posterity,  and  have,  therefore,  created  burthensome 
national  debts,  which  they  will  leave  entailed  upon  their  successors. 

Among  Protestants,  their  theory  being  substantially  the  same,  the  practical 
results  have  been  the  same.  Their  wars  have  generally  been  wars  of  words  and 
ill-feeling — of  discords  and  divisions — the  very  kind  of  wars  intended  to  be  pre- 
vented by  the  law  of  Christ  among  the  professors  of  His  system.  Including  all 
the  different  sects,  from  the  beginning  of  Christianity  to  the  present  time,  more 
than  one  thousand  separate  and  distinct  organizations,  differing  in  doctrines  and 
discipline,  have  existed,  when  Christ  designed  but  one.  And  to  such  a  melan- 
choly and  deplorable  extent  have  these  ever-increasing  divisions  been  carried, 
that  in  the  eloquent  and  indignant  language  of  Mr.  Campbell,  u  before  the  high 
and  holy,  and  puissant  intelligences  of  earth  and  heaven,  this  state  of  things  ia 
most  intolerable." 


138  THE    INFALLIBILITY    OF   THE   CHURCH. 

only  transferred  from  the  fallible  officers  to  the  fallible  parties 
governed,  if  such  could  be  called  government  at  all.  For  ex- 
ample, when  Christ  tells  His  followers  to  "  hear  the  Church," 
and  St  Paul,  acting  for  Him,  commands  his  brethren  to  "  obey, 
submit  to,  and  follow  the  faith  of  them  that  had  the  rule  over 
them" — if  in  these  cases  there  were  (though  no  express)  yet 
implied  conditions  and  reservations  to  be  judged  of  by  the  par- 
ties who  were  themselves  thus  commanded  to  hear  and  obey 
others,  is  it  not  clear  that  the  right  of  revolution  would  practi- 
cally exist  in  the  lay  members  of  the  Church  ?  Did  Christ 
mean  to  be  understood  as  saying,  in  plain  language,  "  hear  the 
Church,  so  long  as  you  think  she  speaks  the  truth  "  ?  In  other 
words,  "hear  yourselves."  And  did  St.  Paul  mean  to  say, 
"  obey,  submit  to,  and  follow  the  faith  of  them  that  have  the 
rule  over  you,  if  you  think  they  are  right "  ?  That  is,  obey 
yourselves^  and  follow  your  own  faith. 

The  idea  of  this  reserved  right  in  the  party  governed  to  de- 
cide whether  the*  officer  placed  over  him  by  Christ  and  acting 
solely  as  the  agent  of  Christ,  construes  the  law  correctly  or  not, 
is  utterly  incompatible  with  every  principle  of  government. 
For  even  in  political  government,  the  right  of  the  citizen  or 
subject  thus  to  decide  in  his  capacity  as  the  party  governed,  does 
not  exist.  The  whole  people,  or  a  majority  of  them,  acting  in 
their  sovereign  collective  capacity,  may  remodel  or  change  the 
government  they  themselves  have  created.  But  in  the  kingdom 
of  Christ,  no  lay  member  can  act  in  any  other  capacity  than  that 
of  a  party  governed.  He  is  under  government,  if  there  be  any 
in  the  Church  at  all.  And  the  officers  of  the  Church  are  equal- 
ly under  government  in  their  individual  capacities.  For  the 
same  reason,  inferior  officers  are  under  government  to  their  supe- 
riors in  their  capacity  of  inferior  officers.  So,  the  Pope,  as  an 
individual,  is  required  to  do  all  that  any  other  individual  mem- 
ber is  required  to  do.  In  our  political  theory,  the  President,  as 
an  individual,  is  equally  subject  to  the  laws  of  the  land.* 

*  I  remember  a  striking  illustration  of  the  principle  that  an  insult  to  the  agent 
or  officer,  is  an  insult  to  the  power  he  represents.  I  was  a  practising  lawyer  at 
the  time,  and  the  Judge  who  presided  was  an  upright  officer,  and  has  since  beerx 
a  member  of  the  United  States  Senate.  An  ordinary  man  had  taken  a  personal 
dislike  to  the  Judge  for  some  imaginary  cause,  (as  dislikes  and  enmities  among 


THE   INFALLIBILITY    OF   THE   CHURCH.  139 

§  12.  The  duty  of  the  judicial  power. 

It  is  the  duty  of  the  judicial  power,  in  every  government,  to 
construe  the  law,  and  apply  it  to  particular  cases.  The  legisla- 
tive power  makes  the  law,  and  the  judicial  power  only  construes 
and  applies  it.  The  difficulties  are  about  as  great  in  the  exer- 
cise of  one  power  as  in  that  of  the  other,  and  it  requires  about 
equal  capacity  to  attain  perfection  in  each. 

What  then  is  the  necessity  of  a  judiciary?  and  what  are  its 
advantages  ?  -  Cannot  the  lawmaker  express  his  intentions  as 
clearly  as  a  tribunal  constituted  by  him  for  that  purpose  ? 

That  a  lawmaker,  possessing  the  same  capacity,  could  use 
language  as  correctly  as  the  judge  who  decides  the  law,  is  clear, 
and  must  be  conceded.  But  the  two  are  placed  in  very  differ- 
ent positions.  There  is  a  wonderful  difference  between  making 
a  law  in  advance,  and  afterwards  construing  it ;  a  difference 
that  should  be  manifest,  upon  reflection,  to  every  sensible  and 
candid  person. 

All  laws  are  made  in  advance,  and  before  any  case  can  arise 
under  them.  They  are  intended  to  govern  future,  not  past  ac- 
tions. Hence  it  follows  that  law  can  only  lay  down  principles, 
but  cannot  apply  them  to  particular  cases,  that  arise  after  the 
law  is  made.  Law  must,  in  the  very  nature  of  the  fact,  deal  in 
principles,  embracing  a  variety  of  cases  under  each  principle. 
Law  never  speaks  but  once.  It  never  changes  its  language,  al- 

men  mostly  arise  from  prejudice  and  imagination,)  and  therefore  he  committed  a 
contempt  of  Court  by  some  insolent  conduct,  intended  as  an  insult  to  the  Judge 
personally.  He  was  arrested  and  brought  before  the  Court.  When  he  first  ap- 
peared before  his  Honor,  he  seemed  to  be  quite  stubborn  and  malicious.  The 
Judge  addressed  him  briefly,  but  in  very  noble  language.  "  You  have, "  said  he 
in  substance,  to  the  culprit,  "  insulted  this  Court,  and  not  the  Judge  personally 
I  act  not  for  myself.  I  am  but  an  agent  of  the  State.  For  myself  individually 
I  ask  no  protection  from  insult,  but  I  do  ask  it  for  my  country — for  the  sovereign 
State,  whose  servant  lam.  You  have  not  insulted  me,  but  you  have  insulted 
your  fellow-citizens — the  people  of  the  whole  State,  of  which  you  are  also  a  citi- 
zen. You  have  insulted  your  country,  and  it  is  made  my  duty,  by  the  laws  of 
the  State,  to  protect  her  dignity  and  her  honor  from  insult  and  contempt.  But 
as  you  have  acted  under  a  mistake  as  to  the  object  of  your  contempt,  the  Court 
will  only  impose  upon  you  a  small  fine." 

I  never  saw  a  man  so  mortified  as  the  poor  culprit  For  the  first  time  in  hi* 
life  he  understood  the  distinction  between  an  individual  and  an  officer. 


140  THE   INFALLIBILITY   OF   THE    CHURCH. 

though  the  meaning  of  its  terms  may  be  changed  by  usage.  Un- 
der any  and  all  sorts  of  perversion,  it  says  no  more.  It  adopts 
no  new  illustrations,  suited  to  the  particular  question  raised,  and 
the  capacity  of  the  party.  It  decides  no  particular  case.  All  it 
can  do  is  to  lay  down  principles.  It  cannot  enumerate,  in  ad- 
vance, the  incidents  that  will  make  up  each  particular  case  that 
may  afterwards  arise,  and  pronounce  the  proper  judgment. 

But  it  is  not  so  with  a  living,  speaking  judiciary.  A  partic- 
ular case  comes  up  before  it.  The  question  is,  does  this  particu- 
lar case  come  within  a  certain  principle  ?  The  tribunal  says 
yea  or  nay.  It  does  not  leave  the  party  to  construe  the  law, 
and  by  comparison  and  rational  deduction  to  arrive  at  the  in- 
tent of  the  lawmaker,  but  says  to  him  plainly,  "  in  this  case  you 
are  wrong,"  or  "  you  are  right,"  as  the  case  may  be.*  The 
Court,  as  each  new  case  arises,  makes  a  construction  of  the  law 
hi  reference  only  to  that  case.  As  all  cases  consist  of  a  certain 
number  of  incidents,  when  one  case  is  decided  in  a  certain  way, 
all  cases  afterwards  arising,  having  the  same  incidents,  come  un- 
der the  principle  settled.  If  the  decision  is  misunderstood,  the 
Court  is  always  in  being,  ready,  able,  and  willing  to  correct  any 
misconstruction  of  its  opinion.  (10  Peters,  393  ;  12  Wheaton, 
117,  124.) 

Thus,  in  the  great  case  of  Col.  Fremont,  lately  decided  by 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  there  were  two  ques- 
tions raised  as  to  the  construction  of  the  Mexican  colonization 

*  Many  of  the  disputed  passages  of  Scripture  are  only  subject  to  one  of  two 
opposite  constructions,  one  of  which  being  condemned,  the  other  must  stand. 
"  This  is  my  body  "  admits  of  but  one  of  two  opposite  constructions.  How  easy 
would  it  be  for  an  authorized  tribunal  to  settle  the  construction !  A  tribunal 
confines  its  decision  to  a  single  point  at  a  time,  and  adapts  its  language  to  the 
precise  state  of  the  particular  misconstruction.  Though  it  is  the  general  charac- 
ter of  language,  as  a  medium  of  thought,  to  be  deficient  in  precision,  there  aro 
still  certain  forms  of  expression  too  plain  to  be  misunderstood.  The  tribunal 
could  take  the  very  words  of  the  proposition  and  say,  "  this  is  wrong.''  Suppose 
we  had  the  Council  of  Jerusalem  still  with  us,  could  not  that  tribunal  settle  the 
questions  now  in  dispute  as  it  did  the  one  before  it  ? 

The  decisive  advantages  of  a  living,  speaking  tribunal  are,  1.  It  decides  after 
the  difficulty  has  arisen,  and  adapts  its  language  to  the  precise  state  of  the  par- 
ticular case.  2.  It  can  repeat  its  explanations  until  it  must  be  understood.  3. 
It  is  always  prepared  to  meet  every  new  difficulty,  as  occasion  may  demand. 


THE    INFALLIBILITY    OF    THE    CHURCH.  141 

laws,  aiid  the  Act  of  Congress  organizing  a  Board  of  Land 
Commissioners,  and  laying  down  the  principles  under  which 
land  claims,  in  the  State  of  California,  should  be  decided.  Ono 
of  the  questions  had  arisen  in  many  cases,  and  had  been  decided 
adversely  to  the  claimants  by  the  Board,  and  by  the  United 
States  District  Court.  The  Supreme  Court  reversed  the  deci- 
sions of  the  inferior  tribunals,  and  what,  to  them,  was  uncertain 
before,  has  now  become  fixed  and  certain.  Now  all  the  cases 
possessing  the  incidents  of  this  case,  and  those  incidents  only, 
must  come  under  this  decision. 

Before  this  decision  was  made,  the  judges  of  the  inferior 
tribunals,  and  the  attorneys,  had  labored  with  intense  applica- 
tion to  find  out  the  correct  construction  of  the  law.  They  had 
before  them  all  the  laws.  There  was  no  difficulty  as  to  the 
identity  of  these  laws.  It  was  only  a  question  of  construction, 
and  no  more.  As  to  that  question,  they  arrived  at  different 
and  precisely  opposite  conclusions.  But  the  moment  the  su- 
preme tribunal  decided,  there  was  one  unanimous  'consent  as  to 
what  was  the  proper  construction,  and  their  labors,  as  to  that 
matter,  were  past.  Now  will  any  man  say  that  the  same  una- 
nimity could  have  possibly  been  attained,  without  such  authori- 
tative construction  of  the  law  ?  If  so,  he  must  take  a  singular 
view  of  things. 

It  is  true,  that  while  all  must  admit  that  this  decision  is  le- 
gally right  and  judicially  infallible,  many  will  doubtless  think 
that  the  decision  ought  to  have  been  different.  But  suppose 
that  Court  had  possessed  actual,  instead  of  mere  judicial  infalli- 
bility, what  perfect  unanimity  would  have  resulted  from  such  a 
decision — not  only  unanimity  of  submission,  but  also  of  belief. 
In  such  case  no  man,  admitting  the  existence  of  this  actual  infal- 
libility, would  ever  question  the  correctness  of  the  decision,  in 
argument  or  theory.  All  would  have  been  perfect  unanimity  in 
the  two  elements  of  act  and  belief. 

The  law  of  Christ  has  to  contend  against  all  the  vices — all 
the  local  prejudices  of  nations  and  races — all  the  changes  and 
novelties  of  each  and  every  age — and  all  the  vicissitudes  of 
every  condition  in  life.  The  duties  to  be  performed  and  the 
truths  to  be  believed  aiv  "hard  to  flesh  and  blood."  The 
kingdom  takes  a  wide  sweep.  It  is  only  bounded  by  the  limits 


THE   INFALLIBILITY    OF   THE    CHURCH. 

of  the  habitable  earth,  and  includes  the  entire  race,  and  ex 
tends  through  all  time.  And  the  perfect  sphere  of  its  duties 
includes  all  the  virtues  our  race  can  possess,  and  the  elevated 
circle  of  its  faith,  the  highest  and  sublitnest  truths  they  can  be- 
lieve. Every  thing  morally  good  must  be  believed  and  prac- 
tised, and  every  thing  evil  must  be  hated  and  avoided.  The 
Christian  is  to  live  for  the  bright  future  more  than  for  the 
tempting  present.  He  must  leave  to  God  the  revenge  of  his 
wrongs  and  the  reward  of  his  merits.  The  man  that  injures 
him,  he  must  pray  for — that  hates  him,  he  must  love.  And  not 
only  must  all  these  things  be  believed  and  done,  but  the  conse- 
quences are  as  enduring  as  the  system  is  boundless,  and  as  eter- 
nity is  endless.  A  few  short  years  of  pleasure  constitute  not  its 
rewards,  and  the  temporary  terrors  of  the  scaffold,  not  its  pun- 
ishments. 

The  perfection  of  the  system — the  perfect  faith  and  obe- 
dience required — render  it  still  more  necessary  to  know  the 
proper  construction  of  its  law.  The  truths  are  supernatural, 
and  therefore  difficult  enough  to  be  believed,  and  the  duties 
difficult  enough  to  be  performed,  when  they  are  known  with 
infallible  certainty.  But  how  much  more  difficult  would  it  be, 
if  each  individual  must  construe  the*  entire  code  at  his  own 
eternal  peril,  without  the  aid  of  any  authorized  interpreter !  * 

*  There  are  only,  as  I  conceive,  three  possible  ways  in  which  Christ  could 
produce  certainty  in  the  construction  of  His  law : 

1.  By  an  inspired  personal  revelation  of  the  true  construction  to  each  indi- 
vidual, as  often  as  occasion  should  arise. 

2.  By  the  institution  of  an  Infallible  tribunal. 

3.  By  enumerating,  in  advance,  all  the  exact  incidents  of  each  particular 
case,  and  pronouncing  the  proper  judgment  as  to  each. 

By  far  the  most  simple,  logical,  and  consistent  method,  is  the  second  one. 
The  first  is  liable  to  many  serious  objections.  It  does  away  with  the  necessity 
of  teachers,  and  of  all  government  in  the  church  ;  and  besides,  the  inspired  per- 
sons might  know  themselves  that  they  were  right,  but  others  would  have  no  test 
by  which  they  could  determine  between  the  true  and  the  pretending  believer. 
Each  individual  asserting,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  resting  in  his  own  individual 
knowledge,  and  not,  therefore,  to  be  disputed,  that  his  interpretation  was  in- 
spired, the  confusion  produced  would  be  endless.  The  third  method  would  have 
required  an  amount  of  labor  at  the  beginning  too  extensive  and  difficult. 


THE   INFALLIBILITY   OF   THE   CHURCH.  143 

§  13.  The  judicial  power  was  exercised  by   the  Apostolic 

Church. 

Did  the  teachers  of  the  early  church  exercise  any  judicial 
power  ?  Did  they  construe  and  apply  the  law  in  the  last  re- 
sort? or  did  each  member  of  the  church  construe  for  himself? 

In  the  first  chapter  of  St.  Paul's  first  Epistle  to  the  Corin- 
thians, verse  ten,  he  lays  down  the  principle  of  the  unity  of  the 
faith.  He  then  goes  on  to  construe  the  law  of  Christ,  and  ap- 
ply it  to  particular  individual  cases  of  heresy  then  found  in  the 
church  at  Corinth.  No  one  could  ever  imagine  that  such  ques- 
tions would  arise,  and  the  apostle  did  not  know  it  until  informed 
by  "them  of  the  house  of  Chloe.''  The  apostle  points  out,  in 
detail,  each  particular  heresy,  and  condemns  each.  And  he 
gives  them  the  reason  for  his  construction  of  the  law,  and  as- 
sumes, as  a  fundamental  principle  of  the  law  already  taught, 
that  Christ  could  not  be  divided ;  and  from  this  position,  and 
the  fact  that  they  were  all  baptized  in  the  name  of  Christ,  he 
concluded  that,  under  a  proper  construction  of  the  law,  they 
could  only  be  of  Christ. 

Now  suppose  the  apostle  had  only  laid  down  the  point  of 
law  in  the  tenth  verse,  requiring  them  to  all  believe  the  same 
thing,  and  had  not  specified  the  particular  heresies  mentioned ; 
would  that  have  corrected  these  errors  ?  The  tenth  verse  con- 
tains doubtless  but  the  restatement  of  a  principle  already  under- 
stood, for  our  Lord  had  prayed  for  the  unity  in  faith  of  all 
those  who  should  believe  on  Him.  This  restatement  was  made 
for  the  purpose  of  applying  it  to  the  particular  cases  mentioned. 
If  St.  Paul  had  only  made  this  restatement,  which  inculcated 
only  the  necessity  of  unity,  the  further  question  as  to  which  of 
the  four  parties  were  wrong,  would  have  been  left  whoUy  un- 
settled, and  the  brethren  would  have  remained  still  divided, 
just  as  the  five  hundred  Protestant  sects  all  admit,  and  insist 
upon,  the  necessity  of  unity,  while  each  as  strenuously  contends 
that  all  the  others  are  wrong  in  their  construction  of  a  conceded 
law.  The  question  not  being  determined,  those  of  Paul  would 
have  said  not  us,  and  so  of  all  the  others. 

"  Who  shall  decide  when  "  members  "  disagree  ?  "  St.  Paul 
said,  in  substance,  I  will  decide  this  matter  for  you.  You  that 


THE   INFALLIBILITY   OF   THE   CHUKCH. 

say  you  are  of  Apollos,  of  Paul,  and  of  Cephas,  are  each  and  all 
of  you  in  the  wrong;  and  you  that  say  you  are  of  Christ,  are  in 
the  right.  This  was  explicit.  No  law,  made  in  advance  of  the 
existence  of  these  particular  errors,  could  have  been  so  explicit, 
without  going  into  the  full  detail  of  all  the  circumstances  of 
each  particular  question. 

The  question  as  to  the  necessity  of  circumcision  for  the  Gen- 
tile converts  already  alluded  to,  is  another  noted  instance  of  the 
construction  and  application  of  the  law  to  a  particular  case  of 
error.  The  facts  and  circumstances  of  that  case  were  remarka- 
ble. They  have  already  been  stated,  in  part. 

The  apostles,  being  the  first  incumbents,  appointed  to  fill  the 
office  of  teacher,  performed  all  the  duties  as  such,  until  the  dis- 
ciples so  multiplied  that  it  became  necessary  for  them  to  ap- 
point other  teachers.  After  their  appointment  they  taught. 
At  Antioch  there  were  certain  prophets  and  teachers,  among 
whom  were  Barnabas  and  Saul.  All  these  men  are  classed  to- 
gether as  teachers  and  prophets,  and  when  Paul  and  Barnabas 
went  upon  a  special  mission,  "they  ordained  them  elders  in 
every  church."  Now  it  is  plain  that  all  the  persons  mentioned, 
namely,  Barnabas,  Simeon,  Lucius,  Manaen,  and  Saul,  were  all 
teachers,  and  carried  out  the  commission  "  Go  teach."  (Acts 
xiii.,  xiv.) 

Until  the  question  regarding  the  circumcision  of  the  Gentile 
converts  arose,  it  was  not  deemed  proper  or  necessary  to  decide 
it.  And  when  it  did  arise,  it  was  among  the  members  of  the 
college  of  teachers ;  and  so  wide  was  the  difference  of  opinion, 
that  it  became  necessary  to  convene  a  council  to  consider  of  the 
question. 

The  protection  and  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit  had  been 
promised  by  Christ  to  the  apostles  and  their  successors  in 
their  corporate  capacity  as  a  college  of  teachers.  Hence  "the 
apostles  and  elders  came  together  to  consider  of  this  matter." 
When  Peter  speaks,  he  argues  from  certain  admitted  facts  and 
principles,  that  circumcision  was  not  required.  He  contends 
that,  as  God  bestowed  upon  the  uncircumcised  Gentiles  the 
same  gifts  as  on  the  Jews,  and  put  no  difference  between  them, 
therefore  it  followed  that  circumcision  could  not  be  required. 
If  the  same  end  could  be  attained  without  circumcision,  then  it 


THE    INFALLIBILITY."    OF   THE    CHURCH.  145 

was  clear  that,  under  the  system,  it  could  not  be  necessary. 
Peter  having  taken  this  ground,  and  referring  to  the  case  of 
Cornelius,  concluded  by  saying,  "  We  believe  that  through  the 
grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  we  shall  be  saved  even  as  they." 

The  arguments  of  Paul  and  Barnabas  consisted  of  the  simple 
statement  of  the  "miracles  and  wonders  God  had  wrought 
among  the  Gentiles  by  them."  Peter  had  referred  to  the  single 
case  of  Cornelius,  but  Paul  and  Barnabas  went  into  other  and 
more  numerous  cases  and  proofs  to  establish  the  same  fact ;  to 
wit: that  God  made  no  difference  between  Jew  and  Gentile — 
between  circumcision  and  uncircumcision — all  of  which  went  to 
show,  by  the  most  rational  deduction,  that  circumcision  could 
not  be  required  by  the  principles  of  the  law,  as  already  promul- 
gated, when  the  end  had  in  view  by  the  law  kself  was  fully  ac- 
complished without  this  rite.  James  argues  upon  the  same 
ground,  as  well  as  upon  the  additional  ground  that  this  had 
been  predicted  by  the  prophets  of  the  Old  Law  ;  and  that, 
therefore,  when  the  New  Law  came  into  existence,  it  extended 
to  the  Gentiles ;  and  that,  as  it  extended  to  them,  it  did  not 
require  of  them  circumcision. 

That  this  decision  of  the  Council  of  Jerusalem  was  only  the 
judicial  construction  and  application  of  the  law  (long  before 
that  time  promulgated)  to  this  particular  case  of  heresy,  is  not 
only  shown  by  the  facts  and  reasons  already  given,  but  also  by 
the  language  used,  and  the  names  given  to  the  decision  itself. 
They  "  came  together  to  consider  of  this  matter."  The  usual 
form  of  a  judgment  is,  "  It  is  therefore  considered  by  the  court." 
St.  James  calls  his  decision  a  "sentence,"  and  the  decision  of 
the  whole  council  is  called  "  decrees,"  which  Paul,  Silas,  and 
Timotheus  delivered  to  the  different  churches  to  keep.  They 
were  called  "  decrees  which  were  ordained  of  the  apostles  and 
elders  which  were  at  Jerusalem."  Now  these  terms,  t-  sen- 
tence "  and  "  decrees,"  when  both  used  to  designate  the  same 
thing,  can  only  be  applied  to  the  judgment  of  a  judicial  tribu- 
nal. The  same  idea  is  conveyed  by  the  language  of  the  Jews 
to  St.  Paul,  on  a  subsequent  occasion,  when  speaking  of  the  de- 
cision of  this  council ;  they  say : 

"  As  touching  the  Gentiles  which  believe,  we  have  written 
and  concluded  that  they  observe  no  such  thing."     The  words 
14 


146  THE   INFALLIBILITY    OF    THE    CHURCH. 

"  we  have  concluded  that  they  observe  no  such  thing,"  can  only 
mean,  in  this  connection,  to  have  formed  a  final  judgment;  to 
have  ended. 

It  will  be  observed  that  none  of  the  apostles  claimed  any 
personal  inspiration  in  reference  to  this  particular  question.  No 
one  who  spoke,  attempted  to  put  down  the  friends  of  circum- 
cision, by  the  statement  that  Christ  had  ever  expressly  men- 
tioned the  subject,  or  that  the  law,  as  promulgated  at  and  after 
the  day  of  Pentecost,  had  ever  expressly  made  any  provision 
upon  this  exact  point.  We  find  nothing  in  the  New  Testament 
history,  previous  to*  this  decision,  that  distinctly  settled  this 
question.  To  determine  it,  required  the  authoritative  judicial 
application  of  the  conceded  principles  and  facts  of  the  system 
of  law  before  that  time  promulgated,  and  for  years  put  in  prac- 
tical operation.  Had  the  question  not  been  raised  until  after 
the  deaths  of  the  apostles,  would  there  have  been  no  authority 
in  the  church  to  settle  it  ? 

It  seems  clear  that  there  would  have  been  such  authority ; 
and  why  ? 

It  is  certain  that  the  Council  of  Jerusalem  was  the  organ  of 
the  entire  Church.  It  is  certain  their  decrees  bound  all  the 
members  of  the  association.  It  is  equally  certain  that  this 
council  was  not  held  by  the  apostles  alone.  "  The  apostles  and 
elders  came  together  to  consider  of  this  matter."  The  elders 
participated  in  the  discussions — they  formed  part  and  parcel  of 
the  council — they  united  in  the  decrees — and  they  were  aided 
by  the  Holy  Ghost  as  well  as  were  the  apostles.  The  elders  as 
well  as  the  apostles  said :  "  For  it  seemed  good  to  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  to  us."  Then  whatever  was  done  in  and  by  this 
council,  was  done  by  the  joint  act  of  the  apostles  and  elders, 
each  one  participating  in  the  act,  and  performing  his  appropriate 
part  of  it.  And  the  decisive  conclusions  that  inevitably  flow 
from  the  simple  facts  recorded  of  the  proceedings  of  this  coun- 
cil, are  these : 

1.  That  the  judicial  power  of  the  church  passed  to  the  elders ; 
and  that  they,  together  with  the  apostles,  composed  this  coun- 
cil, and  with  the  apostles  exercised  the  judicial  power. 

2.  That  the  assistance  of  the  Holy  Ghost  promised  hi  the 


THE    INFALLIBILITY    OF    THE    CTirRCII.  147 

commission  descended  also  to  the  elders,  and  was  not  confined 
to  the  apostles. 

It  cannot  be  said  that  this  was  a  consultation,  and  no  more. 
A  consultation  is  defined  to  be  "  deliberation  of  two  or  more 
persons  with  a  view  to  some  decision."  (Webster.)  The  con- 
sultation had  in  this  case  resulted  in  a  decision,  so  that  there 
were  both  a  consultation  and  a  decision.  When  a  court  is  com- 
posed of  a  plurality  of  judges,  it  is  usual  for  them  to  consult 
with  each  other,  before  the  decision  is  made.  The  decision  is 
the  binding  act,  and  may  or  may  not  follow  a  consultation,  and 
may  also  be  rendered  without  it. 

It  may  be  urged  that  the  apostles  and  elders  did  not  alone 
compose  the  council,  as  it  is  said  that  "  it  pleased  the  apostles 
and  elders,  with  the  whole  church,  to  send  chosen  men,"  &c., 
and  "  the  apostles  and  elders  and  brethren  send  greeting,"  &c. 
(Verses  22  and  23.) 

If  these  expressions  stood  alone,  they  would  show,  prima 
facie,  that  the  council  was  composed  of  apostles,  elders,  and 
others.  But  taken  in  connection  with  other  passages,  and  it 
would  seem  plain,  that  the  council  was  only  composed  of  apos- 
tles and  elders.  It  is  stated  in  verse  second,  that  "  they  deter- 
mined that  Paul  and  Barnabas,  and  certain  other  of  them, 
should  go  up  to  Jerusalem  unto  the  apostles  and  elders  about 
this  question ;  "  and  in  verse  six  it  is  stated  that  "  the  apostles 
and  elders  came  together  to  consider  of  this  matter."  The 
question  was  agreed  to  be  referred  to  the  apostles  and  elders, 
and  these  came  together  to  consider  of  the  matter ;  and,  in  the 
sixteenth  chapter,  verse  four,  it  is  said  that  the  "  decrees  were 
ordained  of  the  apostles  and  elders."  The  apostles  and  elders 
composed  the  ordaining  power,  because  they  ordained.  No 
doubt  the  decision  gave  satisfaction  to  the  whole  Church  at  Je- 
rusalem, and  they  no  doiivbt  contributed  the  means  to  send  the 
messengers,  and  these  facts  constituted  the  reason  for  mention- 
ing the  facts  stated.  St.  Paul  commences  several  of  his  Epistles 
in  the  joint  names  of  himself  and  others  ;  as  for  example,  2  Cor., 
Philip.,  Coloss.,  Thess.,  and  Philemon.  But  in  these  same  Epis- 
tles, he  afterwards  speaks  in  the  first  person  singular. 

These  are  only  two,  among  many  instances  in  which  the 
law  governing  the  Apostolic  Church  received  a  judicial  con 


148  THE    INFALLIBILITY    OF    THE    CHURCH. 

struction  and  application  to  particular  cases  of  heresy,  or  other 
violation  of  the  law. 

§  14.  The  same  judicial  power  still  exists  in  the  Church. 

From  the  simple  narrative  of  the  New  Testament  it  appears 
certain,  that  in  the  days  of  Christ,  whenever  His  previous  words 
were  misconstrued,  He  was  ready  to  explain ;  and  that  after 
His  ascension,  the  means  were  still  left  in  the  Church  to  reach 
the  same  result.  The  disciples  were  not  left  to  get  at  the  proper 
construction  of  the  law  the  best  way  they  could,  according  to 
the  learning,  condition,  and  circumstances  of  each  individual ; 
but  there  existed  in  those  happy  days  an  infallible  tribunal  to 
construe  and  apply  the  law  in  the  last  resort.  Disputed  con- 
structions of  the  law  were  settled  decisively,  and  controversies 
ended.  The  disciples  of  that  day  saw  that  the  Legislative  and 
Judicial  powers  of  this  government  were  guided  by  the  same 
Holy  Spirit.  These  most  fortunate  disciples  could  well  rejoice 
for  the  consolation,  when  they  read  the  epistle  from  the  council. 
They  could  dispense  with  the  yoke  sought  to  be  imposed  upon 
them,  without  the  slightest  risk  of  being  deceived.  They  had 
the  endorsement  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  It  was  the  voice  of  God, 
speaking  through  His  agents.  There  was  no  mistaking  the  de- 
cision. It  mentioned  the  particular  heresy  in  the  very  words 
of  those  who  maintained  it,  and  condemned  it  by  the  most  ex- 
plicit language,  applied  to  that  individual  case  alone.  The  im- 
measurable distance  between  a  fallible  and  infallible  tribunal  is 
apparent  to  the  simplest  mind.  Well  may  Mr.  Campbell  say : 

"  We  sooner  or  later  all  discern,  that  between  the  fallible 
and  the  infallible,  there  is  a  gulf,  into  which  the  universe  might 
be  hurled,  without  at  all  reducing  the  chasm.  Finities  and  falli- 
bles  are  weak  authorities,  when  heaven  and  immortality  are  at 
stake."* 

*  C.  &  R.'s  Debate,  764.  Mr.  C  continues  :  "  And  the  moment  that  B  pro- 
pounds his  synopsis  with  the  slightest  air  of  authority,  in  the  way  of  exacting 
obedience,  or  acknowledgment,  tha*t  moment  there  is  something  in  human  na- 
ture that  whispers  in  A,  Who  is  this  brother  B  ?  A  fallible  like  myself!  A 
great  man  h«  may  be  ;  but  he  is  fond  of  his  own  opinions,  and  prides  himselt 
upon  his  superiority.  I  will  not  lay  a  victim  upon  his  altar,  nor  burn  incense  at 
his  shrine ;  I  too  am  a  man,  and  will  yield  to  none  the  right  to  dictate  to  me." 

But  most  unfortunately  the  theory  of  Mr.  C.  provides  no  remedy  for  the  evJl 


THE   INFALLIBILITY   OF   THE   CHURCH.  149 

The  practical  superiority  of  such  a  tribunal  may  be  shown  by 
a  very  simple  but  conclusive  test.  We  will  suppose  that  a 
council  could  be  called  at  a  given  time  and  place,  fully  empow- 
ered to  determine  all  controversies  existing  among  Protestants, 
with  infallible  certainty;  and  that  Protestants  conceded  that 
fact.  How  easy  it  would  be  to  harmonize  all  differences,  and 
condemn  all  errors  among  them.  There  could  exist  not  the 
slightest  difficulty  in  understanding  the  council.  Each  particu- 
lar error  could  be  enumerated  and  condemned.  The  decisions 
could  be  made  as  plain  as  the  decision  of  Paul,  or  that  of.  the 
Council  of  Jerusalem.  The  council  could  take  the  definitions 
of  each  particular  error  as  made  by  the  party  maintaining  it, 
and  say  :  "  This  we  condemn,"  "  this  we  approve."  Adapting 
the  form  of  the  decree  to  the  error  condemned,  certainty  could 
be  attained. 

This  was  the  course  pursued  in  the  Council  of  Jerusalem ; 
for  in  their  decree  they  say,  among  other  things  : 

"  Forasmuch  as  we  have  heard,  that  certain  which  went  out 
from  us  have  troubled  you  with  words  subverting  your  souls, 
saying,  Ye  must  be  circumcised  and  keep  the  law,  to  whom  we 
gave  no  such  commandment."  So,  in  the  case  of  Luther,  when 
he  submitted  his  work  to  the  Pope,  there  were  some  forty-two 
propositions  stated  by  Luther  in  his  own  words.  These  propo- 
sitions, as  stated  by  him,  were  condemned  by  the  Pope  ;  and 
so  plain  was  the  decision  that  Luther  at  once  understood  what 
was  intended. 

ne  mentions.  The  supposed  question  between  A  and  B  was  simply  one  of  con- 
struction of  a  conceded  written  law.  A  is  most  fully  justified  in  rejecting  the 
fallible  interpretation  of  brother  B  ;  but  while  he  does  so,  he  only  falls  back 
upon  bis  own  equally  fallible  interpretation.  He  is  just  as  apt  to  be  fond  of  his 
own  opinions  as  brother  B.  True,  it  may  be  flattering  to  the  pride  of  brother 
A — to  that  •'  something  in  human  nature " — to  be  allowed  to  interpret  for 
himself  in  the  last  resort ;  bu-t  as  his  sole  and  only  object  should  be  to  arrive  at 
the  true  will  of  the  lawmaker,  (whose  system  never  did  flatter  human  pride,)  he 
might  rely,  with  just  as  much  cliance  of  being  right,  upon  the  fallible  interpreta- 
tion of  brother  B,  as  upon  his  own  equally  fallible  construction.  So,  after  -all 
the  eloquent,  the  beautiful,  the  true  language  of  Mr.  Campbell,  as  to  the  differ- 
ence between  the  fallible-  and  the  infallible,  he  leaves  his  brother  A  still  resting 
alone  upon  "  finities  and  fallibles,"  those  "  weak  authorities  when  heaven  and 
immortality  are  at  stake." 


150  THE   INFALLIBILITY   OF   THE   CHTJKCH. 

But  according  to  Protestants  no  such  tribunal  can  now  ex 
1st.  Faith  then  rests  in  the  fallible  construction  of  each  fallible 
mind.  The  written  code,  by  which  alone  they  profess  to  be 
guided,  makes  no  further  answer — gives  no  further  explanation 
— names  no  particular  error.  Under  any  and  all  sorts  of  per- 
version, it  is  silent.  Having  once  laid  down  general  principles, 
it  ceased,  and  remains  mute.  Having  once  spoken,  it  speaks  no 
more.  It  allows  no  one  to  interpret  its  language  with  unerring 
certainty,  as  it  gives  no  infallible  guide  for  such  a  purpose.  If 
this  system  of  uncertainty  be  the  true  character  of  the  govern- 
ment of  Christ,  since  the  days  of  the  apostles,  we  are  truly  un- 
fortunate. It  had  been  better  for  us  to  have  been  born  in  those 
days  of  purifying  persecution,  but  of  absolute  certainty.  Better 
to  suffer  any  amount  of  temporal  inconvenience,  than  thus  be 

left  as  mere 

"  restless  wanderers  after  rest." 

But  is  it  true  that  Christ  and  His  apostles  exercised  the  ju- 
dicial power  during  the  short  period  of  their  lives,  and  yet  in- 
tended that  this  power,  which,  in  its  very  nature,  is  a  part  of 
the  system,  and  should  exist  while  the  law  is  to  be  practically 
enforced  in  this  world,  should  then  cease  ?  That  therefore,  the 
Christians  of  that  favored  day  should  have  and  enjoy  all  the  ad- 
vantages of  such  a  tribunal,  and  that  all  subsequent  Christians 
should  be  governed  by  a  crippled  system  of  law  ?  Was  the  ex- 
ercise of  the  judicial  power  in  the  apostolic  church  idle  and  use- 
less ?  If  so,  why  ?  If  useful,  then  why  are  we  deprived  of  it  ? 
Why  is  a  great  system  of  law,  made  by  an  Infallible  Lawmaker, 
and  purporting  to  be  permanent,  thus  shorn  of  one  of  its  most 
consolatory  and  practical  elements  ? 

It  is  a  melancholy  truth,  if  it  be  so.  We  cannot  "  rejoice 
for  the  consolation,"  as  did  the  Gentile  converts.  God  now,  if 
this  be  true,  speaks  through  no  living  agents.  He  has  now  no 
agent  on  earth  who  can  speak  with  any  authority.  Each  indi- 
vidual does  that  now  for  himself,  which  was  then  alone  done  for 
all,  by  those  who  could  say  with  authority,  "  it  seemed  good  to 
the  Holy  Ghost  and  to  us."  One  of  the  most  consolatory  and 
beautiful  features  and  conservative  powers  of  the  early  Church 
has  been  lost,  when  it  would  seem  to  be  as  much  needed  now  aa 
at  the  beginning.  Instead  of  possessing  the  perfection  the  in- 


THE    INFALLIBILITY    OF    THE    CHURCH.  151 

Ptitution  did  in  the  beginning,  it  has  lost  its  infallible  judiciary. 
According  to 'this  levelling  and  destructive  theory,  it  is  now  a 
mock  government,  not  possessing  the  genuine  powers  of  govern- 
ment, because  its  judiciary  has  no  infallibility,  either  actual  or 
judicial,  and  can,  therefore,  make  no  final  and  binding  decision. 
A  system  without  a  parallel  in  any  social  institution.  A  law  in- 
tended to  govern  a  UNITED  people,  and  yet  each  individual  GOV- 
ERNED is  to  construe  the  law  ALONE  for  himself  in  the  LAST  RE- 
SORT. An  association  whose  shadowy  tribunals  make  decisions 
in  mere/orm,  that  no  one  is  bound  to  obey  ;  for  the  reason  that 
they,  in  the  contemplation  of  the  theory  itself,  are  no  evidence 
of  the  true  construction  of  the  code.  They  are  idle,  for  they 
settle  no  questions,  as  did  the  decisions  of  the  Apostolic  Church. 
When  she  spoke  through  her  organs,  she  was  heard.  When 
she  gave  her  construction  of  the  code,  it  was  final.  She  was,  in 
fact,  a  Church* 

§  15.  Scripture  proofs  of  the  infallibility  of  the   Church  ex- 
amined. 

But  has  this  retrograding  change  come  over  the  system  ? 
Is  it  true  that  we  are  now  left  without  any  infallible  tribunal  in 
the  Church  ?  Is  it  true  that  questions  of  construction  can  arise 
from  age  to  age,  and  accumulate  from  century  to  century,  and 

*  The  Protestant  theory  does  leave  the  Church,  since  the  days  of  the  apos- 
tles, in  the  most  deplorable  condition.  She  is  still  charged  with  all  the  duties  of 
teaching  that  devolved  upon  the  apostles.  She  is  required  to  teach  the  same 
truths — no  more,  no  less.  But  while  che  is  thus  bound  to  construe  and  apply  the 
very  same  code  of  law,  she  is  denied,  by  this  theory,  the  very  powers  and  quali- 
fications found  necessary,  in  the  days  of  the  apostles,  in  order  to  do  the  very  same 
tning.  If  the  judicial  power  was  necessary,  and  did  exist,  and  was  exercised  in 
the  Apostolic  Church,  can  any  logical  mind  conceive  or  give  any  substantial  rea- 
son why  the  same  power  should  not  always  exist  ?  If  certain  given  powers  and 
qualifications  were  necessary  to  administer  the  law  at  one  time,  is  it  not  so  at  all 
Mines,  when  the  same  thing  has  to  be  done  ? 

It  is  true  that  the  apostles  acted  in  two  perfectly  distinct  capacities.  They 
were  witnesses  and  teachers.  But  it  is  equally  true  that  they  had  the  infallible 
assistance  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  loth.  And  as  the  duty  of  teaching  is  perpetual, 
(and  not  temporary,  as  was  the  duty  of  witnesses,)  there  must,  of  necessity,  be 
the  same  powers  and  qualifications  to  teach  in  every  age.  Who  can  form  any 
conception  of  a  system  requiring  a  great  duty  always  to  be  performed,  and  at  the 
same  time  lenyingthe  necessary  powers  and  qualifications  to  accomplish  it? 


152  THE    INFALLIBILITY    OF    THE    CHURCH. 

still  remain  undecided  till  the  last  day  of  the  institution  on  earth, 
for  want  of  power  in  the  Church  to  settle  them  ?  Is  the  Church, 
founded  and  built  by  Christ,  so  imbecile  as  that  ?  Is  His  own 
work,  His  own  institution,  so  unworthy  of  any  confidence  ?  Is 
this  the  best  that  a  Divine  Founder  of  an  institution  could  do  ? 
But  what  were  His  promises  to  His  Church  ?  What  did  His 
chosen  witnesses  say  of  her  ?  Did  they  speak  of  her  as  weak 
and  sickly,  tottering  and  mutable  ?  Did  they  give  her  a  perish- 
able, temporary  character  ? 

But  before  we  proceed  to  examine  the  texts  in  reference  to 
that  institution  which  Christ  called  "  his  church,"  and  the  apos- 
tle Paul  "  Tfte  Church,"  it  is  necessary  to  inquire  whether  this 
Church  was  visible  or  invisible. 

It  is  difficult  to  conceive  how  an  invisible  church  could  exist 
as  a  church  at  all.  It  can  hardly  fill  Lindley  Murray's  definition 
of  a  noun,  for  it  seems  not  to  be  "the  name  of  any  thing  that 
exists,  or  of  which  we  can  form  any  notion."  It  is  an  intangible, 
undefinable,  and  imaginary  body,  about  which  no  distinct  idea 
can  be  formed,  and  for  the  existence  of  which  no  tolerable  rea- 
son can  be  given.  And  for  what  purpose,  and  to  what  end  it 
was  instituted,  it  is  difficult  to  divine.  It  being  invisible,  no 
one  can  see  it,  and  it  cannot  exercise  any  authority. 

The  powers  of  government  given  to  the  church,  it  is  clear, 
were  given  to  the  visible  church.  When  Christ  tells  us  to  hear 
the  church,  He  certainly  means  the  visible  Church.  And  when 
He  speaks  of  one  fold,  He  must  refer  to  the  visible  Church.  And 
when  we  are  told  that  the  "  Lord  added  daily  to  the  church 
such  as  should  be  saved,"  we  are  informed  that  they  were  add- 
ed to  the  visible  Church.  And  the  Church  in  which  Timothy 
was  to  behave  himself,  was  the  visible  Church,  "  the  pillar  and 
ground  of  the  truth."  The  duties  inculcated  upon  Timothy  and 
Titus  were  to  be  discharged  in  the  visible  Church.  The  Council 
of  Jerusalem  was  held  in  the  visible  Church,  and  they  issued 
visible  decrees. 

It  seems  to  be  clear  that  whatever  powers  of  government 
Christ  bestowed  upon  the  church,  were  to  be  exercised  by  the 
visible  Church,  and  that  the  exercise  of  these  powers  was  guided 
by  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  days  of  the  apostles.  Were  those 
powers  and  their  infallible  guidance  to  continue  in  the  church 


THE   INFALLIBILITY    OF   THE   CHURCH.  153 

together  to  the  end  of  time,  as  apart  of  the  fundamental  law  of 
the  institution?  If,  on  the  contrary,  those  powers  and  this 
guidance  were  intended  to  be  temporary,  and  to  last  only  for 
the  first  few  years  of  her  existence,  and  then  forever  to  cease  ; 
of  course  the  exact  limits  of  their  duration  are  plainly  marked ; 
otherwise,  it  would  be  very  difficult  to  determine,  from  the 
Scripture,  the  period  when  they  did  cease,  or  whether  they  were 
to  cease  at  all.  For  if  this  visible  institution  was  organized 
with  certain  powers  and  promises,  and  we  are  told  that  the  as- 
sociation itself  was  to  last  until  the  end  of  time,  and  these  pow- 
ers and  promises  are  not  clearly  marked  and  designated  as  tem- 
porary, then  it  would  seem  extremely  difficult  and  hazardous  for 
us  to  undertake  to  say  they  were  so,  and,  therefore,  had  ceased. 
But  when  no  such  limits  are  set,  and  we  find  the  promises  ac- 
companied with  expressions  that  refer  to  all  coming  time,  the  dif- 
ficulty and  peril  become  so  great  that  we  cannot,  without  the 
utmost  violence  to  the  language,  and  the  whole  drift  and  spirit 
of  the  system,  decide  them  to  have  been  temporary  in  their 
character. 

In  the  eighteenth  chapter  of  the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew  our 
Lord  said : 

"  And  if  he  shall  neglect  to  hear  them,  tell  it  unto  the  church: 
but  if  he  neglect  to  hear  the  church,  let  him  be  unto  thee  as  a 
heathen  and  a  publican."  (Verse  17.) 

When  Christ  tells  us  to  hear  the  church,  He  speaks  of  but  one 
Church— the  Church  He  instituted.  He  says  "  THE  CHURCH  " 
in  the  singular.  He  does  not  refer  to  "  the  church"  as  existing 
in  this  or  that  age,  in  this  or  that  country,  but  He  refers  to  the 
corporate  institution  as  existing  in  all  after  ages.  The  Church 
is  viewed  as  an  artificial  person  or  corporation,  that  never  dies, 
and  that  can  speak  through  her  proper  organs.  He  says  "  hear 
the  Church."  It  is  the  Church  that  speaks,  not  the  individual 
members  in  their  own  right.  The  teachers  that  speak,  speak  for 
her,  and  as  her  organs  only.  What  she  does  through  her  or- 
gans, she  does  herself. 

But  not  only  does  Christ  say  that  the  Church  can  speak, 
but  He  commands  us,  without  any  reservation,  to  "  hear  the 
church."     There  is  no  exception  made.     The  command  is  gen- 
eral and  imperative.     Would  He  command  us  to  hear,  without 
15 


154  THE    INFALLIBILITY    OF    THE    CHURCH. 

any  reservation  or  exception,  a  mere  fallible  tribunal  ?  In  sucfc 
case  we  should  be  compelled  to  "hear  the  church,"  whether  she 
spoke  the  truth  or  not. 

But  our  Lord  says  explicitly :  "  Upon  this  rock  I  will  build 
my  church,  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it." 

The  church  is  here  viewed  in  the  light  of  a  visible  structure, 
founded  upon  a  rock,  and  that  is  the  reason  why  St.  Paul  after- 
wards calls  this  Church  the  "  house  of  God."  Now  the  phrase 
"  my  church " — the  phrase  "  the  church " — and  the  phrase 
"house  of  God,"  unquestionably  refer  to  one  and  the  same 
thing  precisely  ;  namely :  the  visible  Church. 

When,  therefore,  Christ  tells  us  that  the  gates  of  hell  shall 
not  prevail  against  this  Church,  His  promise  regards  the  entire 
Church  of  all  ages,  in  the  same  way  that  the  command  to  hear 
the  Church  does.  The  promise  is  as  general  and  unlimited  as 
the  command ;  and  they  both  must  stand  or  fall  together.  They 
both  regard  the  Church  as  existing  through  all  coming  time. 

Christ  establishes  the  Church  as  a  decider  of  controversies 
arising  under  the  Christian  law;  and  then  says,  in  another 
place,  that  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  her.  This 
promise  has  relation  to  the  command  to  hear  the  Church.  As 
the  Church  possessed  the  power  to  decide  controversies,  this 
must  be  one  end  of  its  institution.  The  power  was  given  for  a 
great  and  beneficial  purpose.  If  she  failed  to  exercise  this  power 
correctly,  she  would  so  far  fail  to  attain  the  end  of  her  creation. 
Nothing  would  seem  more  consonant  with  reason  and  Scripture 
than  this :  that  teaching  the  truth  was  the  leading  end  to  be 
accomplished  by  the  visible  Church,  and  that  the  power  and 
duty  of  teaching  must  include  the  right  and  duty  to  determine 
what  shall  be  taught,  and  what  is  contrary  thereto.  And  if  the 
Church  failed  in  this  "main  purpose  of  her  creation,  that  then  the 
gates  of  hell  would  prevail  against  her.  For  it  must  be  evident, 
that  the  moment  the  governing  power  of  the  church  failed,  she 
must  fail,  and  subvert  the  souls  of  those  who  are  commanded  to 
hear  her.  What  more  could  the  gates  of  hell  desire  than  that 
this  Church  should  fail  to  do  her  duty,  and  thus  defeat  the 
mighty  purpose  of  her  creation  ? 

It  would  seem  also  clear,  that  the  temporary  errors  of  par- 
ticular teachers,  would  not  subvert  the  entire  church,  any  more 
than  the  errors  of  those  who  insisted  upon  the  necessity  of  cir- 


THE    INFALLIBILITY    OF   THE   CHURCH.  155 

cumcision,  or  of  those  unruly  teachers  alluded  to  by  St.  Paul, 
or  the  errors  of  inferior  courts  would  subvert  civil  government. 
They  are  spots  upon  the  sun,  and  spots  only.  But  when  the 
entire  governing  power  of  the  church  is  subverted,  (wherever 
that  power  is  held  to  be  placed,)  then  the  gates  of  hell  would 
surely  prevail  against  her.  Such  a  result  would  be  in  plain 
violation  of  the  promises  of  Christ.* 

*  Mr.  Rice,  in  his  argument  to  sustain  infant  baptism,  quotes  largely  from 
the  Ancient  Fathers  to  show  the  practice  of  the  Church,  and  says : 

"  In  conclusion  I  offer  one  more  argument.  It  is  this  :  if  it  should  turn  out, 
that  infant  baptism  is  unscriptural,  and  that  Mr.  Campbell's  views  of  immersion 
as  the  only  valid  baptism  are  true,  we  are  forced  to  the  conclusion,  that  for  sev- 
eral centuries,  there  was  no  true  church."  Again :  "  We  are  then  obliged  to  be- 
lieve that  the  Saviour's  promise  has  failed ;  and  the  '  gates  of  hell '  did  prevail 
against  his  church."  (C.  &  R.'s  Debate,  421.) 

I  certainly  cannot  dispute  the  argument  and  conclusion  of  Mr.  Rice.  But 
it  would  be  very  difficult  to  show  any  reason  against  applying  the  same  argument 
to  the  other  alleged  errors,  charged  to  have  been  introduced  into  the  Church.  If 
she  failed  because  she  taught  the  alleged  error  of  infant  baptism,  (conceding  it 
to  have  been  an  error,  for  the  sake  of  the  argument,)  then  she  equally  failed 
when  she  taught  other  doctrines  which  Protestants  allege  as  errors,  if  in  fact  they 
were  such.  I  am  constrained  to  think  that  the  argument  of  Mr.  Rice,  when 
fairly  and  legitimately  carried  out,  would  prove  one  of  two  things  very  clearly : 

1.  That  these  alleged  errors  were  truths  handed  down  from  the  apostles ;  or 
2.  That  the  promises  of  Christ  did  fail— His  Church  did  fall— and  that  there  is 
now  no  true  Church  in  the  world. 

If  we  say  that  the  Church  has  ceased,  or  will  cease,  to  exist  at  any  period 
before  her  prescribed  course  has  been  run,  then  we  must  concede  the  failure  of 
the  promises  of  Christ ;  not  only  because  such  a  failure  would  be  in  direct  con- 
flict with  His  clear  and  most  explicit  promises — "  lo,  I  am  with  you  alicay,  even 
unto  the  end  of  the  vjorld" — "  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it" — 
but  because  the  continued  existence  of  the  Church  is  necessary  to  accomplish  the 
great  and  beneficent  purposes  of  His  mission  The  Church,  having  been  consti- 
tuted by  Him  His  teaching  agent,  it  was  but  just  to  all  ages,  that  this  same 
teaching  authority  should  be  always  in  existence,  and  always  visible.  If  we  re- 
gard the  Church  as  a  visible  corporation,  (and  we  can  form  no  conception  of  an 
invisible  corporation  composed  of  visible  men,)  then  her  continued  existence  must 
follow,  or  she  must  die  to  exist  no  more  on  earth.  The  promises  of  Christ  to  her 
were  unconditioned,  and  not  conditional,  as  were  His  promises  to  individuals  re- 
garding matters  of  their  own.  Her  unfailing  existence  and  continued  purity,  as 
a  teaching  agent,  are  absolutely  necessary  to  accomplish  the  great  ends  contem- 
plated in  her  creation.  If  we  once  concede  that  the  Church  can  fail,  then  we 
concede  that  Christ  was  fallible,  weak,  and  impotent,  and  only  created  an  insti- 
tution like  himself. 


156  THE   INFALLIBILITY    OF   THE   CHURCH. 

But  our  Saviour  not  only  commanded  us  to  hear  the  church, 
and  pledged  Himself  for  her  continued  purity  and  unfailing  ex- 
istence, but  when  creating  the  office  of  teacher,  and  appointing 
the  first  members  of  the  college,  and  commanding  them  what 
they  should  do  in  that  capacity,  He  also  said  that  He  would 
be  "  with  them  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world ; »'  and 
before  that  time  He  had  promised  them  that  the  Father  would 
give  them  the  Comforter  to  "abide  with  them  forever." 

Now  what  did  our  Lord  mean  by  the  expressions,  I  am  with 
you — abide  with  you  f  These  expressions,  which  mean  the  same 
thing,  are  very  often  used  by  Christ,  and  in  every  case  the 
meaning  is  invariably  the  same ;  namely :  "  I  am  with  you  to  aid 
you  with  my  power."  It  always  means  that  the  persons  to 
whom  the  promise  was  given  were  to  be  guided  and  protected 
by  Him.  The  presence  of  the  Holy  Ghost  did  the  same.  Of 
course  our  Lord  could  not  be  with  them  for  a  mere  idle  purpose, 
and  He  could  only  be  with  them  to  enable  them  to  accomplish 
the  end  proposed.  Therefore,  the  effect  of  this  promise  is  al- 
ways limited  to  the  objects  for  which  it  was  given.  When 
Christ  constituted  a  college  of  teachers,  and  promised  to  be  with 
them  to  the  end  of  the  world,  He  only  promised  to  be  with 
them  in  the  office  He  created,  and  for  the  purposes  of  the  office. 
Hence  we  find  the  Holy  Ghost  abiding  with  the  Council  of  Je- 
rusalem, and  guiding  that  tribunal  to  a  correct  construction  of 
the  law.* 

*  It  may  be  said  by  some,  that  as  all  men  possess  personal  free  agency,  and 
no  one  is  compelled  to  be  a  Christian,  it  is  possible  that  in  some  one  or  more  ages  of 
the  world,  there  would  be  no  Christians  on  earth,  and  no  Church  ;  and  that  Chris- 
tianity might  afterwards  revive.  It  is  true,  that  while  such  a  state  of  case  is  ab- 
stractly possible,  our  Lord  did  promise  that  the  gates  of  hell  should  not  prevail 
against  His  Church.  How,  then,  could  He  positively  make  this  promise,  and  yet 
leave  the  free  agency  of  all  men  untouched  ?  If  the  gates  of  hell  should  prevail, 
at  any  time,  against  the  Church,  the  promise  that  this  should  never  happen,  would 
fail. 

The  answer  to  this  is  very  simple.  Our  Lord  foresaw  the  future,  and,  there- 
fore, adapted  His  system  and  promise  to  the  actual  state  of  things,  and  not  to 
bare  possibilities.  The  personal  free  agency  of  all  men  He  left  untouched ;  and 
yet  He  could  very  safely  promise  that  the  gates  of  hell  should  not  prevail  against 
1  i  is  Church.  He  foresaw  that  among  the  millions  of  human  beings  existing  in 
all  ages,  there  would  always  be  a  sufficient  number  believing  in  His  name  to  form 


THE    INFALLIBILITY    OF    THE    CHURCH.  157 

The  words  of  St.  Paul  are  very  emphatic  and  clear.  Speak- 
ing of  the  visible  Church,  he  calls  it  "the  church  of  the  living 
God,  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth."  Observe  the  certain- 
ty and  force  of  the  expressions — the  church — the  pillar  and  (the) 
ground  of  the  truth — the  house — the  living  God.  There  was 
one  God,  one  house,  one  church,  one  pillar,  one  ground,  and  one 
system  of  truth  referred  to,  and  only  one. 

The  apostle  had  ample  reason  for  saying  so.  He  had  com- 
manded his  brethren  to  "  obey,  submit  to,  and  foUow  the  faith 
of  them  that  had  the  rule  over  them,"  and  had  himself  been  at 
the  Council  of  Jerusalem,  and  had  witnessed  that  tribunal  guided 
by  the  Holy  Spirit  to  a  final  decision.  He  might  well  call  the 
Church  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth.  Now  as  St.  Paul  re- 
garded the  Church,  not  only  as  the  pillar,  but  also  as  the  ground 
of  the  truth,  how  could  such  an  institution  be  any  thing  but  in- 
fallible ?  The  distance  between  the  fallible  and  the  infallible 
being  so  great,  as  so  eloquently  described  by  Mr.  Campbell,  how 
could  such  glorious  things  be  affirmed  of  a  mere  fallible  tribu- 
nal ?  Nothing,  it  would  seem,  could  fill  the  description  of  the 
apostle,  but  an  infallible  Church.  How  could  a  Church  teach- 
ing essential  error  be  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth  f  In 
such  case  she  would  be  the  pillar  and  ground  of  error,  and  not 

the  Church.  This  Church,  heing  a  continuing  corporation,  with  numbers  indefi- 
nite and  variable,  and  being  His  own  institution,  created  as  His  own  agent,  He 
had  the  right  to  control  this  artificial  being  while  assuming  to  teach  His  own 
law,  and  doing  His  own  business.  Although  He  had  not  the  right  to  force  any 
one  to  join  this  Church,  yet  after  they  did  so  voluntarily,  and  while  they  volun- 
tarily remained  members,  He  had  the  right  to  control  the  collective  whole  while 
that  whole  assumed  to  act  for  Him  as  His  agent.  Most  errors  in  reference  to  the 
Church  will  be  found,  when  thoroughly  examined,  to  be  essentially  based  upon 
the  error  of  not  distinguishing  between  individuals,  acting  for  themselves,  and  the 
corporation  or  Church,  acting  for  Christ.  When  a  man  joins  the  Church,  he  acts 
for  himself,  and  not  as  the  agent  of  Christ.  In  reference  to  his  own  business  hi» 
free  agency  is  untouched.  The  Church  is  not  the  individual,  but  the  combined 
whole.  It  is  the  corporation  that  our  Lord  infallibly  aids,  when  she  assumes  to 
teach  as  His  agent,  and  in  His  name.  He  might  well  promise  His  unfailing  pro- 
tection and  His  overruling  assistance  to  an  institution  which  He  foresaw  would 
always  exist  by  the  voluntary  acts  of  His  creatures.  Knowing  that  there  would 
be  believers  in  every  age,  who  of  their  own  free  will  become  such,  He  could  well, 
upon  this  existing  basis,  predicate  His  promise  that  this  existing  institution 
should  always  teach  the  truth  as  He  delivered  it, 


158          THE  INFALLIBILITY  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

of  truth.  It  could  not  be  denied,  except  by  the  unbeliever,  that 
whatever  Christ  promised,  He  would  perform.  And  it  would 
seem  impossible  for  a  Church,  to  which  such  magnificent  prom- 
ises were  given,  to  be  as  fallible  as  mere  human  institutions. 

If  we  consider  the  necessity,  and  the  end  and  object  of  the 
organization  of  the  visible  Church — the  perfect  character  and 
unlimited  power  of  its  founder — the  nature  of  all  governments  of 
law  over  associated  bodies  of  men — the  inherent  defects  of  all 
language — the  obscurities  peculiar  to  the  Scriptures — the  diffi- 
culty even  in  the  application  of  well-understood  principles  to 
particular  cases — the  obstacles  to  be  overcome  by  this  great  in- 
stitution, arising  from  the  extent  of  its  empire,  the  long  period 
of  its  existence,  the  variety  of  races,  manners,  habits,  and  nation- 
al prejudices — the  perfection  of  faith  and  practice  required — and 
then  see  what  Christ  and  His  apostles  did  do — how  our  Lord 
first  taught  His  disciples,  and  then  appointed  them  as  teach- 
ers, and  they  in  turn  did  the  same  thing,  and  commanded 
those  they  appointed  to  appoint  others — how  the  teachers  had 
the  rule  over  the  Apostolic  Church,  and  their  faith  was  to  be 
followed,  and  they  to  be  obeyed — how  our  Lord  commanded 
His  followers  to  hear  the  church,  and  promised  to  found  it  upon 
a  rock,  and  protect  it  against  the  gates  of  hell,  and  to  be  with 
His  teachers  to  the  end  of  the  world,  and  to  send  them  the  Holy 
Ghost  to  abide  with  them  forever — and  then  see  how  Christ 
carried  out  these  promises  by  guiding  the  decision  of  the  Coun- 
cil of  Jerusalem  to  infallible  certainty,  making  the  Church  the 
pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth  in  fact — and  when,  to  use  the 
touching  language  of  the  noble  apostle  Paul,  we  "  think  on  these 
things"  and  sincerely,  and  without  prejudice,  calmly  put  them 
all  together,  and  fully  appreciate  the  combined  force  of  all,  then 

it  is  that 

"  Truth  bursts  upon  us  with  resistless  day ;  " 

and  the  conclusion  becomes  irresistible,  that  Christ  was  the  Di- 
vine Founder  of  a  perfect  system — that  the  permanent  code  was 
made  perfect  at  the  beginning,  not  only  because  He  possessed 
the  power  and  the  wisdom  to  make  it  so,  but  that  all  His 
subjects,  in  all  after  ages,  might  be  alike  governed  by  the  same 
law — that  as  the  necessary  judicial  power  to  secure  \his  perma- 
nent end,  could  not  be  exercised  in  advance^  He  confided  it  to 


THE   INFALLIBILITY   OF   THE   CHURCH.  159 

His  agents,  whom  He  qualifies  and  guides  from  age  to  age,  with 
the  same  Infallible  Spirit  that  dictated  the  node  itself.* 

It  would  also  seem  evident  from  the  very  nature  of  mere 
delegated  authority,  that  this  protection  from  error  only  ex- 
tended to  the  apostles  and  their  successors  in  their  official  ca- 
pacity, leaving  them,  in  their  personal  capacity,  as  other  indi- 
vidual members  of  the  church.  As  agents  and  officers  of  Christ, 

*  In  reference  to  the  infallibility  of  the  Church,  Dr.  Spring  says: 

"  We  grant  that  there  are  promises  of  divine  guidance  made  to  the  church, 
but  we  do  not  grant  that  there  are  any  promises  of  infallibility.  That  the  true 
and  spiritual  community  of  the  faithful,  have  the  promise  of  preservation  from 
essential  and  fundamental  error,  no  one  can  question,  because  such  preservation 
is  indispensable  to  its  existex.ce  as  a  true  church."  (Diss.  34.) 

The  distinction  between  infallibility  and  that  "  divine  guidance  "  sufficient  to 
preserve  the  Church  from  essential  error,  is,  I  apprehend,  not  very  apparent.  I 
suppose  that  infallibility  may  well  be  conferred  upon  a  corporation  for  a  certain 
given  purpose,  and  limited  to  that  purpose,  in  the  same  way  that  limited  juris- 
diction may  be  conferred  upon  a  particular  court.  The  infallibility  bestowed 
upon  the  apostles  was  confined  to  Christianity.  They  were  not  any  wiser  as  to 
science.  So,  when  divine  personal  protection  was  promised  to  St.  Paul,  it  was 
specially  confined  to  that  purpose.  (Acts  xviii.  10.)  So,  the  infallibility  prom- 
ised the  Church  may  well  relate  to  faith  and  morals — to  the  judicial  construction 
and  application  of  the  Christian  code ;  and  if  that  infallibility  embraces  these 
objects,  and  preserves  the  Church  free  from  error,  it  does  no  more  than  the  "  di- 
vine guidance  "  spoken  of  by  the  learned  divine.  The  amount  and  measure  of 
aid  to  the  Church  is  the  same,  producing  the  same  effects,  in  both  cases,  and  is 
equally  divine  in  both.  The  only  difference,  it  seems,  is  this,  that  the  Dr.  con- 
tends that  this  divine  guidance  was  given  to  the  invisible  Church,  which  is, 
therefore,  the  invisible  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth  and  the  invisible  house  of 
God  ;  while  I  contend  it  was  given  to  the  visible  Church,  for  the  visible  exercise 
of  its  powers  of  teaching.  It  was  certainly  as  easy  to  bestow  it  upon  the  visible, 
as  upon  the  invisible  Church,  and  far  more  useful  in  practice.  The  writer  states 
on  page  33 :  "  The  true  Church  of  Jesus  (  hrist  is  a  spiritual  community.  While 
the  church  visible,  may  contain  the  church  spiritual,  they  are  by  no  means 
identified." 

The  language  of  Mr.  Rice,  and  that  of  Mr.  Breckenridge,  as  already  quoted, 
stems  clearly  to  give  the  promises  to  the  visible  Church.  They  seem  too  sensi- 
ble to  believe  in  that  intangible  and  imaginary  thing,  called  an  invisible  Church. 

I  could  never  find  any  evidence  that  Christ  ever  did  build  more  than  one 
Churcli ;  and  as  it  is  conceded  that  He  did  establish  the  visible  Church,  I  never 
could  see  any  reason  for  the  creation  of  any  other.  There  certainly  is  only  one 
Church  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament.  Christ  said,  '•  My  church,"  and  St, 
Paul  said,  "The  church." 


160  THE    INFALLIBILITY    OF   THE    CHURCH. 

they  were  guided  by  the  Hcfly  Spirit,  because  their  acts,  in  that 
capacity,  were  HIS  ACTS.  When  they  assumed  to  act  for 
Him,  He  did  not  permit  them  to  err  in  His  name.  If  they  had 
the  power  to  err  as  JEfis  agents,  then  we  could  not  know  that 
the  facts  stated  by  them  as  His  chosen  and  inspired  witnesses, 
were  infallibly  true.  Christ  then  guarantied  their  official,  not 
their  personal,  conduct.  When  they  acted  for  themselves,  as 
individuals,  their  free  agency  was  left  in  full  force.  It  could 
not  have  been  otherwise,  without  a  violation  of  the  great  prin- 
ciple of  personal  free  agency.  Their  official  power  was  one 
thing,  and  their  personal  virtue  was  another.  They  were  not 
compelled  to  become  the  agents  of  Christ ;  and  when  they  did 
voluntarily  become  so,  He  had  the  right  to  control  them  in 
reference  to  His  "Father's  business,"  as  much  as  a  man  has  the 
right  to  control  His  own  agent,  in  reference  to  his  own  busi- 
ness. Hence,  all  the  apostles  personally  sinned,  while  they 
were  with  Christ,  and  under  His  immediate  visible  eye ;  and 
Peter  and  Paul  were  guilty  of  dissimulation  long  after  the  day 
of  Pentecost.  What  was  true  of  the  apostles  was  true  of  most 
of  the  patriarchs,  prophets,  and  priests  of  Aaron's  line.  Being 
men,  they  sinned  even  after  all  they  had  seen  and  heard.  Moses 
was  not  allowed  to  enter  the  promised  land,  because  of  sin. 

But  these  personal  transgressions  of  the  law  did  not  render 
void  their  official  acts.  Christ  also  spoke  to  the  multitude  and 
to  his  disciples : 

"  Saying  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  sit  in  Moses'  seat.  All 
therefore  whatsoever  they  bid  you  observe,  that  observe  and 
do ;  but  do  not  ye  after  their  works :  fqr  they  say  and  do  not." 
(Matt,  xxiii.  2,  3.) 

The  case  of  Caiaphas  is  a  remarkable  illustration  of  this  clear 
principle,  concerning  which  Mr.  Campbell  says : 

"  Even  the  wicked  Caiaphas  was  vested  with  an  oracle. 
The  spirit  came  upon  him,  and  he  prophesied,  being  High  Priest 
that  year.  He  was  then  a  good  High  Priest,  although  a  wicked 
man."  (C.  &  R.'s  Debate,  309.) 

Zacharias  was  punished  for  not  believing  the  angel  Gabriel, 
yet  he  was  afterwards  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  prophe- 
sied. Even  the  thief  and  traitor  Judas  Iscariot,  was  sent  with 


THE   INFALLIBILITY   OF   THE   CHTJKCH.  161 

the  other  apostles  to  preach  the  gospel,  heal  the  sick,  and  cast 
out  devils.     (Luke  i.,  Matt,  x.) 

§  16.   The  tribunal  under  the  Old  Dispensation. 

In  the  debate  with  Mr.  Campbell,  Mr.  Rice  maintained  this 
position : 

"  The  church  then  is  the  same  under  the  Jewish  and  Chris- 
tian dispensations."  (P.  285.) 

Under  the  Jewish  dispensation  there  existed  a  tribunal  to 
determine  all  questions  arising  under  the  law  of  God. 

"And  behold  Amariah  the  chief  Priest  is  over  you  in  all 
matters  of  the  Lord ;  and  Zebadiah,  the  son  of  Ishmael,  the 
ruler  of  the  house  of  Judah,  for  all  the  king's  matters :  also  the 
Levites  shall  be  officers  before  you."  (2  Chron.  xix.) 

In  the  seventeenth  chapter  of  Deuteronomy,  these  tribunals 
are  also  spoken  of.  The  sentence  was  final,  for  the  Israelites 
were  told  "  not  to  decline  from  the  sentence  to  the  right  hand 
nor  to  the  left."  Josephus  also  states  that  the  "  High  Priest 
sacrifices  to  God  before  other  priests,  guards  the  laws,  and  de- 
termines controversies."  (Lib.  2  Contra  Apionem.) 

It  will  be  perceived  that  there  were  two  Presidents  of  the 
Court,  one  the  High  Priest  for  ecclesiastical  causes — u  matters 
of  the  Lord ;  "  and  the  other  for  civil  causes — "  the  king's  mat- 
ters ; "  and  that  the  penalty  of  disobedience  was  death.  The 
code  of  law,  which  this  ecclesiastical  tribunal  was  empowered 
and  required  to  construe  and  administer,  was  given  by  God 
himself.  From  its  decisions  no  appeal  could  be  taken,  and  all 
the  Israelites  were  to  submit  implicitly.  The  right  of  private 
interpretation  in  the  last  resort,  did  not  exist  under  that  system. 
There  was  conclusive  authority  in  this  court.  It  was  limited, 
however,  in  its  jurisdiction  and  duration. 

Now,  was  the  infallibility  bestowed  upon  this  tribunal  actual 
or  judicial? 

From  the  fact  that  its  decisions  were  not  to  be  questioned, 
and  that  it  was  its  duty  to  expound  and  administer  the  express 
law  of  God,  it  would  naturally  follow,  that  it  possessed  actual 
infallibility.  That  God  should  communicate  an  express  and 
positive  law  to  His  chosen  people,  prescuibing  the  worship  due 
to  Him,  and  at  thp.  same  time  direct  them  to  obey  implicitly  a 


162  THE    INFALLIBILITY   OF   THE    CHURCH. 

tribbuial  created  by  Him,  but  still  fallible  and  erring,  would 
hardly  be  in  unison  with  the  evident  intent  and  object  of  giving 
the  law  itself.  This  tribunal  was  intended  to  endure  for  many 
ages,  and  if  liable  to  err,  would  almost  certainly  depart  from 
the  pure  spirit  of  the  law,  sooner  or  later,  and  thus  defeat  the 
intention  of  the  lawmaker. 

We  know  that  the  wicked  Caiaphas  was  enabled  to  prophe- 
sy, because  he  was  High  Priest  that  year.  The  gift  was  at- 
tached to  his  official  character.  It  is  true,  Christ  reproaches 
the  Pharisees  with  having  made  void  the  law  of  God,  in  certain 
specified  respects,  by  their  traditions.  But  this  does  not  seem 
to  be  directed  against  the  decisions  of  this  tribunal,  (which  our 
Lord  had  expressly  commanded  His  disciples  to  observe,)  but 
against  the  opinions  of  individuals.  It  is  clear,  that  the  opinions 
of  individuals  could  not  destroy  the  character  of  the  tribunal 
itself.  Christ  Himself  clearly  distinguishes  between  the  deci- 
sions of  this  tribunal,  and  the  acts  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees, 
"  for  they  say  and  do  not." 

It  is  alleged  that  there  was  a  tradition  among  the  Jews,  that 
Christ  would  be  a  temporal  sovereign.  Was  this  ever  so  de- 
cided by  this  tribunal?  The  existence  of  this  tradition,  or 
opinion,  among  the  mass  of  the  nation,  would  not  prove  that 
the  tribunal  had  ever  made  any  decision  upon  the  question. 
Again :  Was  the  question  regarding  the  true  character  of 
Christ's  then  future  kingdom  upon  earth,  a  matter  material 
to  be  understood  and  believed  by  the  Jews  ?  The  Pharisees 
believed  in  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  in  the  existence 
of  spirits;  while  the  Sadducees  rejected  both.  Had  anyone 
of  these  questions  ever  been  decided  by  this  tribunal  ?  I  am 
not  aware  that  any  such  decision  was  ever  made. 

But  if  it.  was  a  matter  of  faith  with  the  Jews,  that  Christ's 
kingdom  should  not  be  temporal,  but  spiritual,  and  it  was  mat- 
ter of  fact  that  this  tribunal  had  decided  to  the  contrary,  then 
it  would  follow,  either  that  its  decisions  were  not  final,  or  that 
God  required  the  Jews  to  obey  erroneous  decisions.  If  the  de- 
termination was  not  final,  then,  who  was  to  question  it,  and 
how  was  it  to  be  done  ?  Both  the  law  and  the  tribunal  for  its 
administration,  were  expressly  made  and  organized  by  God 


THE   INFALLIBILITY    OF   THE   CHURCH.  163 

himself;  and  no  human  power  could  set  them  aside,  but  they 
must  be  obeyed  until  their  termination. 

I  ain  therefore  forced  to  conclude  that  this  tribunal  was  in- 
fallible in  fact,  and  guided  by  God,  who  created  it.  I  cannot 
see  any  evidence  that  such  was  not  the  fact ;  but  on  the  con- 
trary, every  circumstance  confirms  this  view.  I  know  it  is  very 
forcibly  and  justly  said,  that  in  rejecting  Christ,  as  this  tribunal 
did  in  his  condemnation,  it  clearly  erred.  Nothing  can  be 
clearer  than  the  fact  that  this  tribunal  did  err  in  that  case. 
Now  were  the  people  bound  to  submit  to  its  decision,  and  also 
reject  Christ  ?  Most  clearly  not.  They  were  bound  to  reject 
the  decision.  Then,  if  they  were  in  this  particular  case,  not 
only  at  liberty  to  reject  the  decision,  but  bound  to  do  so,  upon 
what  ground  can  we  claim  infallibility  of  any  kind,  for  this  err- 
ing tribunal  ?  Why  should  men  be  required  to  obey  such  a 
tribunal  ?  And  on  the  other  hand,  why  should  men  have  the 
right,  first  to  ask  the  decision  of  a  tribunal,  and  then  to  set  it 
aside,  if  it  happened  not  to  suit  them  ? 

There  must  be  some  fair  and  just  way  to  settle  and  adjust 
all  these  apparent  difficulties.  The  very  fact  that  the  only  con- 
ceded error  in  the  decisions  of  this  tribunal  occurred  in  the 
close  of  its  duration,  if  not  afterwards,  is  conclusive  proof  to 
iny  mind,  that  it  did  possess  actual  infallibility  up  to  the  period 
when  this  protection  was  withdrawn.  When  did  this  tribunal 
err  before  this  period?  During  the  many  ages  of  its  existence, 
under  every  variety  of  change  and  trial,  if  it  did  not  err,  then 
it  must  have  been  protected. 

In  the  law  creating  this  tribunal,  it  was  limited  in  jurisdic- 
tion, and  in  duration.  It  was  only  to  continue  until  the  new 
dispensation  came  in.  Before  Christ  appeared,  the  only  living 
tribunal  to  expound  the  law  of  God,  was  the  one  created  by 
God  Himself.  The  people  could  look  to  no  other.  But  in  the 
very  law  itself,  it  was  shown  that  Christ  should  come.  This 
tribunal  had  always  so  held.  After  our  Lord  appeared,  they 
were  bound  to  know  that  this  tribunal  was  superseded  in  all 
things  opposed  to  His  teaching.  Our  Lord  was  then  present 
a  living,  visible  teacher,  to  whom  they  could  appeal. 

As  to  the  exact  period  at  which  this  divine  protection  was 
withdrawn,  it  is  not  material  for  us  to  know.  From  the  com- 


THE   INFALLIBILITY    OF  THE   CHURCH. 

mand  of  Christ  to  His  apostles,  and  the  prophecy  of  Caiaphas, 
it  would  seem  clear  that  it  was  not  withdrawn  at  the  commence- 
ment of  our  Lord's  ministry.  It  may  be  that  when  our  Lord 
eat  the  passover  for  the  last  time,  that  He  closed  the  law  ;  or  it 
may  be,  that  as  the  period  of  our  Lord's  earthly  ministry  was 
one  of  preparation  for  the  incoming  dispensation,  and  was  a 
period  of  transition,  that  this  protection  was  gradually  with- 
drawn ;  especially  in  reference  to  Christ  and  His  then  future 
kingdom. 

But  conceding,  for  the  sake  of  the  argument  only,  that  this 
tribunal  was  never  under  the  Divine  guidance  at  any  period  of 
its  existence,  the  state  of  the  case,  and  the  natural  result  flowing 
from  it,  would  be  this :  That  God  had  made  an  express  law  for 
the  government  of  His  chosen  people,  intended  to  exist  for 
many  ages,  and  had  Himself  created  a  tribunal  for  the  adminis- 
tration of  His  law,  from  whose  decisions  no  appeal  could  be 
taken  ;  and  yet  He  left  it  as  fallible  as  if  it  had  been  a  mere 
human  institution ;  but  such  was  the  invincible  necessity  for  the 
existence  of  some  visible  and  accessible  tribunal  to  construe  and 
administer  the  law,  that  even  so  fallible  a  court  was  much  supe- 
rior to  the  right  of  individual  interpretation  in  the  last  resort — 
so  necessary  are  uniformity  and  peace  in  every  association  of 
men.  If  this  position  be  correct,  that  the  court  possessed  mere 
judicial,  and  not  actual,  infallibility,  this  tribunal  did  make  void 
the  law  of  God  by  its  decisions ;  and  yet  the  people  had  no 
right  of  appeal  from  its  decisions,  but  wore  bound  to  submit 
implicitly.  From  which  it  would  seem  clear,  that  even  a  mere 
fallible  tribunal  is  better  than  no  tribunal  at  all. 

Why,  then,  does  not  this  same  Church  under  the  new  dis- 
pensation, have  also  a  tribunal  to  decide  controversies  arising 
under  the  law  of  Christ  ?  If  it  be  the  same  Church,  as  Mr. 
Rice  contends,  it  ought  to  possess  equal  privileges  with  the 
Church  under  the  old  and  mere  preparatory  dispensation. 

But  if  the  position  be  true,  that  this  tribunal  was  protected 
by  the  divine  guidance  up  to  the  termination  of  its  legal  exist- 
ence, then,  by  what  process  of  reason  can  we  arrive  at  the  con- 
clusion, either  that  our  Lord  left  no  tribunal  in  His  Church,  or 
that  its  decisions  can  fail  before  its  destined  course  is  run? 
While  Christ  was  on  earth,  He  was  a  present,  living,  and  su 


THE    INFALLIBILITY    OF   THE    CHUKCH.  lf)5 

preme  Sovereign,  to  whom  application  could  be  made  in  all 
case8 ;  but  since  His  ascension,  if  there  be  no  tribunal  in  the 
Church,  there  is  no  government,  and  no  certain  mode  to  termi- 
nate any  controversy.  Now,  either  give  us  Christ  present  and 
visible,  or  give  us  some  tribunal  to  act  for  Him.  Leave  us  not 
in  a  worse  condition  than  the  Jews  of  old.  The  code  of  law 
given  to  them,  was  certainly  as  plain  and  as  easily  understood, 
as  the  law  of  Christ.  If  they  needed  a  tribunal,  even  though 
actually  fallible,  do  we  not  also  ?  The  end  of  the  new  dispensa- 
tion has  not  yet  arrived.  Christ  has  not  appeared  the  second 
time.  Before  He  does  so  appear,  let  us  have  some  tribunal  whose 
judgments  cannot  fail.  And  if  we  cannot  have  an  actually  in- 
fallible tribunal,  let  us  have  one  that  we  may  safely  follow,  (right  or 
wrong,)  which  would,  at  least,  be  much  better  than  that  confused 
and  illogical  theory  which  requires  unity,  while  it  leaves  us  no 
means  to  attain  it,  but  makes  every  member  of  that  which  is  called 
a  Church,  the  judge  of  the  law  in  his  own  case  in  the  last  resort. 
From  Mr.  Rice's  position  one  of  two  things  must  follow : 
either  that  the  church  under  the  new  dispensation  has  such  a 
tribunal,  or  that  she  has  lost  a  most  important  part  of  her  con- 
stitution, and  is  nothing  now  in  unity,  efficiency,  and  symmetry 
to  what  she  was  of  old.  She  has  lost  the  great  conservative 
element  that  she  possessed  while  confined  to  the  Jews,  now  that 
she  embraces  all  nations,  and  for  that  very  reason,  seems  to 
need  it  most. 

§  17.   Objections  considered. 

But  in  this  connection  it  will  be  necessary  to  examine  cer- 
tain texts  and  reasons,  which  are  relied  on  by  Protestant  writ  ers 
to  show,  that  even  in  the  days  of  the  apostles,  the  right  of  pri- 
vate interpretation  existed  in  each  member  independent  of  the 
church,  and  not  in  subordination  to  it.  If  such  right  existed  in 
that  day,  as  a  matter  of  course  it  existed  ever  after.  If,  on  the 
contrary,  it  did  not  exist  then,  it  never  existed  afterwards. 

It  is  difficult  upon  principles  of  sound  reasoning,  to  under- 
stand how  this  right  could  exist  in  the  individual  members  of 
the  church,  when  so  many  persons  were  forced  by  her  decisions 
to  change  their  construction,  and  others  were  expelled  because 
they  refused  to  do  so.  It  is  difficult,  I  apprehend,  to  reconcile 


166  THE    INFALLIBILITY    OF   THE   CHUKCH. 

the  strong  and  clear  commands  of  Christ,  of  St.  Paul,  and  of  the 
Council  of  Jerusalem,  with  the  alleged  right  of  private  inter- 
pretation in  the  last  resort. 

The  following  passages  are  most  usually  relied  on  : 

1.  "Search  the  Scriptures;  for  in  them  ye  think  ye  have 
eternal  life :  and  they  are  they  which  testify  of  me."     (John  v. 
39.) 

2.  "  These  were  more  noble  than  those  of  Thessalonica,  in 
that  they  received  the  word  with  all  readiness  of  mind,  and 
searched  the  Scriptures  daily,  whether  these  things  were  so." 
(Acts  xvii.  11.) 

3.  "  Believe  not  every  spirit,  but  try  the  spirits  whether 
they  are  of  God."     (1  John  iv.  1,  7.) 

4.  "  Not  for  that  we  have  dominion  over  your  faith,  but  are 
helpers  of  your  joy:  for  by  faith  ye  stand."     (2  Cor.  1.  24.). 

5.  "  If  any  of  you  lack  wisdom,  let  him  ask  of  God,  that  giv- 
eth  to  all  men  liberally,  and  upbraideth  not ;  and  it  shall  be 
given  him."     (James  i.  5.) 

6.  "All  Scripture  is  given   by  inspiration  of  God,  and  is 
profitable,"  &c.     (2  Tim.  iii.  14,  16.) 

The  ground  taken  by  Protestants  is,  substantially,  that  these 
texts  establish  two  points  : 

1.  That  individuals  were  allowed  to  read  the  Scriptures,  and 
were  commended  for  doing  so. 

2.  That  as  they  were  permitted  to  read,  of  course  they  were 
permitted  to  construe. 

If  we  take  these  and  other  texts  and  construe  them  together, 
so  as  to  give  force  and  effect  to  all,  we  shall  find  but  little  diffi- 
culty in  arriving  at  a  just  conclusion. 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  first  two  passages  relate  to  persons 
outside  the  Church — to  aliens  from  the  Kingdom.  They  had 
never  come  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Church,  and  she  could 
not  inflict  upon  them  any  ecclesiastical  punishment.  All  she. 
could  do  to  persons  in  their  lost  state,  was  to  place  before  them 
the  truth,  which  they  could  either  accept  or  refuse.  If  the) 
refused,  she  could  do  no  more.  No  affirmative  act,  on  her  part, 
was  required  to  change  the  relation  they  sustained  to  her.  They 
simply  remained  where  they  were  before.  She  had  no  power 
or  jurisdiction  over  them,  any  more  than  a  political  government 


THE    INFALLIBILITY    OF   THE    CHUKCH.  167 

can  have  jurisdiction  over  aliens  not  within  its  territory.  They 
had  never  received  any  thing  from  the  Church,  had  contracted 
no  obligations  to  her,  and  she  had,  of  course,  nothing  to  with- 
draw. Therefore,  the  right  of  individual  construction  existed 
in  aliens  from  the  Church,  (in  the  same  way  that  such  right  ex- 
ists in  aliens  from  political  government,)  because  they  were 
such,  and  only  acted  and  spoke  as  such.  If  they  remained  in 
that  state  of  alienage,  they  were  the  sufferers,  not  the  Church. 

But  in  reference  to  members,  who  bore  another  and  a  very 
different  relation  to  the  Church,  the  rule  was  different.  Hence 
Christ  said  those  of  His  fold — the  Church — would  hear  His  voice 
and  follow  Him ;  and  He  told  members  to  hear  the  Church ; 
and  St.  Paul  commanded  members  to  obey  the  rulers  of  the 
Church ;  and  St.  Peter  exhorts  his  brethren  to  submit  to  theii 
under-shepherds ;  and  Timothy  and  Titus  were  to  rebuke  and 
expel  members,  not  strangers. 

But  conceding,  for  the  sake  of  the  argument  only,  that  the 
teaching  authority  of  the  Church,  in  the  days  of  the  apostles, 
permitted  the  lay  members  to  read  or  hear  read  the  Scriptures 
as  one  means  of  instruction,  then  the  essence  of  the  objection  is, 
that  the  right  of  the  Church  to  construe  the  law  in  the  last  re- 
sort, is  incompatible  with  the  reading  of  the  Scriptures  by  indi- 
viduals. But  is  this  true  ?  The  true  explanation  is  this :  that 
the  individual  construes  in  the,  first  instance,  and  the  Church  in 
the  last  resort.  These  rights  are  perfectly  compatible  with  each 
other,  and  exist  in  every  system  of  law.  For  the  very  reason 
that  the  individual,  under  every  system  of  government,  is 
allowed  to  construe  in  the  first  instance,  he  is  not  allowed  to 
construe  in  the  last  resort. 

The  object  of  the  just  lawgiver  is  to  place  in  the  mind  of  the 
party  governed  a  perfect  knowledge  of  his  will.  The  written 
or  traditional  code — the  words  of  the  legislator — are  mere  evi- 
dence of  his  will,  which  is  the  higher  and  ultimate  object  sought 
by  the  party  under  government.  Suppose  that  for  this  purpose 
the  lawmaker  places  in  the  hands  of  each  one  of  his  subjects,  the 
volume  containing  his  law,  and  at  the  same  time  they  are  in- 
tormed  by  him  and  by  the  book  itself  that  there  is  a  tribunal  to 
construe  in  the  last  resort ;  is  there  any  thing  illogical  or  contra- 
dictory in  tliis  ?  If  so,  then  all  the  great  legislator)  and  jurists 


168  THE   INFALLIBILITY   OF   THE   CHUKCH. 

of  every  civilized  country  in  the  world  have  long  acted  upon  a 
very  illogical  system. 

The  great  statesmen  and  jurists  of  the  United  States,  from 
the  days  of  Washington  to  the  present  time,  have  all,  with  one 
accord,  urged  every  citizen  to  read  and  study  the  Constitution 
of  his  country ;  and  yet  the  Constitution  itself  informs  every  one 
that  the  right  of  ultimate  construction  rests  with  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States.  The  Senate  of  the  United  States 
have  had  purchased,  for  gratuitous  disposition,  some  thirty-five 
thousand  copies  of  Hickey's  corrected  copy  of  that  instrument. 
Now  suppose  an  individual  to  whom  Mr.  Webster  had  sent  a 
copy,  to  have  addressed  him  thus  :  "  Sir,  you  have  sent  for  my 
perusal  and  study  a  number  of  Hickey's  Constitution  ;  and  yet 
I  find,  upon  examination  of  the  instrument,  that  there  is  a  judi- 
ciary to  construe  the  Constitution  and  other  laws  in  the  last  re- 
sort. Therefore,  for  what  purpose  have  I  read  it  ?  since  my 
construction  is  but  subordinate,  and  not  final.  Is  it  not  absurd 
to  recommend  a  man  to  read  and  study  an  instrument  which,  at 
last,  will  be  construed  by  another  tribunal,  without  any  regard 
to  what  he  has  done  ?  " 

We  can  well  imagine  the  surprise  with  which  the  great  con- 
stitutional expounder  would  have  received  this  plausible,  but 
wholly  erroneous  objection. 

The  Constitution  and  laws  of  our  country  contain  many  plain 
provisions,  easily  understood,  and  some  hard  to  be  understood, 
as  St.  Peter  says  of  St.  Paul's  Epistles.  The  reader,  therefore, 
can  learn  a  portion,  and  this  will  be  profitable  to  him.  He  can 
learn  those  plain  provisions  that  teach  him  he  is  under  govern- 
ment ;  and  that  while  he  has  the  privilege  to  read  and  construe 
the  law  in  the  first  instance,  the  ultimate  right  of  construction 
is  vested  in  the  Judiciary. 

If  there  can  be  any  real  incompatibility  in  the  existence  of  a 
subordinate  right  of  construction  in  one  party,  and  the  superior 
right  of  exposition  in  another,  then  it  is  most  difficult  to  per- 
ceive it.  The  Old  Law  was  required  to  be  read  at  the  feast  of 
tabernacles  to  all  the  people,  and  yet  they  were  implicitly  bound 
by  the  higher  construction  of  the  tribunal  established  by  God 
Himself.  (Deut.  xxxi.  9-12.)  Now  there  is  no  difference,  so 
far  as  the  point  of  present  inquiry  is  concerned,  in  reading  and 


THE   INFALLIBILITY   OF   THE   CHURCH.  169 

hearing  read  the  law.  In  one  case  the  words  are  conveyed  by 
sight,  in  the  other  by  hearing,  to  the  mind ;  and  in  both  the  words 
of  the  law  must  be  construed. 

Now  if  there  be  no  incompatibility  in  permitting  each  citi- 
zen to  study  the  Constitution  himself,  while  his  construction  is 
but  subordinate  and  not  final,  how  then  does  it  follow  that  the 
ancient  Christians  could  not  read  the  Scriptures  unless  they,  and 
each  of  them,  were  allowed  to  decide  the  construction  in  the 
last  resort  ?  The  passages  quoted  nowhere  lay  down  any  such 
principle.  They  establish  the  proposition  that  individuals 
were  commended  for  reading  the  Scriptures.  But  cannot  this 
be  true,  and  yet  perfectly  consistent  with  the  ultimate  right  of 
the  Church  to  construe  in  the  last  resort  ?  The  individual  could 
be  profited  and  edified,  and  yet  hear  and  obey  the  Church. 
They  but  exercised  a  subordinate  privilege,  that  exists  in  all  gov- 
ernments. These  texts  do  not  annul  the  clear  and  specific  pro- 
visions of  the  code,  requiring  us  to  hear  the  church,  and  to  obey, 
submit  to,  and  follow  the  faith  of  them  who  have  the  rule  over 
us. 

The  practice  of  the  apostles  and  elders  of  the  Church  in  their 
day,  was  perfectly  consistent  with  this  view.  They  intended  to 
make  the  system  consistent  with  itself.  They  did  not  intend  to 
give  commands  that  were  not  to  be  obeyed.  When  we  look 
into  St.  Paul's  Epistles  we  find  that  a  large  portion  of  them  is 
taken  up  in  giving  his  construction  of  the  code,  and  his  reasons 
and  proofs  to  sustain  it ;  and  hence  he  refers  often  to  the  Old 
Scriptures.  In  these  Epistles  we  find  him  mentioning  certain 
particular  errors  in  different  churches,  and  distinctly  condemn- 
ing them.  The  brethren  to  whom  he  wrote  had  misconstrued 
the  law,  and  we  find  St.  Paul  overruling  their  construction.  The 
Corinthian  brethren  had  erred  in  this  way.  *  So,  the  Jewish 
Teachers  who  insisted  upon  the  necessity  of  circumcision  for  the 
Gentile  converts,  had  misconstrued  the  law,  and  the  Council  of 
Jerusalem  overruled  their  construction,  just  as  a  higher  court 
would  the  construction  of  an  inferior  tribunal. 

Christ  had  appealed  to  His  miracles  as  proofs  of  His  charac- 
ter ;  but  the  Pharisees  relied  upon  the  Scriptures,  and  our  Lord 
referred  them  also  to  those  Scriptures,  at  the  same  time  telling 
them,  in  substance,  that  they  misconstrued  them,  and  that  if 
16 


170  THE    INFALLIBILITY    O*    THE    CHURCH. 

they  would  search  and  construe  properly,,  they  would  find  that 
these  Scriptures  testified  of  Him.  But  in  thus  referring  to  the 
Old  Testament,  did  our  Lord  intend  to  say  to  the  Jews  that  His 
miracles  were  no  proofs  of  His  mission  ?  He  only  referred  to 
additional,  but  not  contradictory  proofs.  And  when  the  noble 
Bereans  searched  the  Old  Scriptures,  they  did  not  neglect  the 
proofs  that  Paul  and  Silas  gave  them,  independent  of  these  Scrip- 
tures. So,  when  St.  Paul  said  the  Scriptures  were  profitable, 
he  did  not  mean  to  say :  "  You  must  not  obey,  submit  to,  or 
follow  the  faith  of  them  that  have  the  rule  over  you."  Nor  did 
lie  intend,  when  he  commanded  Timothy  and  Titus  to  command, 
teach,  exhort,  and  rebuke  with  all  authority,  to  ordain  and  try 
elders,  and  reject  heretics,  that  these  persons,  thus  rebuked  and 
rejected,  should  construe  the  law  for  themselves,  independent 
of  Timothy  and  Titus.  These  persons  were  in  duty  bound  to 
obey  and  submit,  not  to  govern  and  decide  themselves.  And 
when  Christ  told  His  followers  to  hear  the  Church,  He  did  not 
mean  to  say  that  they  should  construe  the  law  independent  of 
her. 

The  quotation  from  St.  John,  where  he  tells  his  brethren  to 
"  try  the  spirits  whether  they  are  of  God,"  is  far  from  being 
against  the  view  I  have  taken,  but  would  seem  to  support  it. 

The  apostle  gives  his  brethren  two  rules,  by  which  they  were 
to  test  the  spirits,  to  know  whether  they  were  false  teachers 
or  not,  for  many  false  prophets  had  gone  out  into  the  world. 

1.  Every  spirit  that  confessed  that  Jesus  Christ  had  come  in 
the  flesh  was  of  God,  and  every  one  that  denied  it  was  not  of 
God. 

2.  "He  that  knoweth God  heareth  us  :  he  that  is  not  of  God 
heareth  not  us.     Hereby  know  we  the  spirit  of  truth  and  the 
spirit  of  error." 

The  spirit  that  confessed  Christ  was  a  true  spirit ;  and  the 
test,  as  to  whether  a  particular  individual  confessed  Christ,  was 
the  fact  whether  he  heard  the  apostles  or  not.  This  was  saying, 
in  substance,  that  the  false  prophets  were  they  who  refused  to 
hear  the  church  ;  for  when  they  refused  to  hear  the  proper  or 
gans  of  the  Church,  they  refused  to  hear  the  church  itself.  This 
was  a  very  simple  test  by  which  to  detect  these  false  prophets. 
The  apostle  first  tells  his  brethren  what  they  must  do,  and  then 


THE    INFALLIBILITY    OF   THE  CHURCH.  171 

tells  them  how  they  can  do  it.  So  the  apostle  Paul,  when  he 
commanded  the  Corinthians  to  speak  the  same  thing,  and  be 
united  in  the  same  judgment,  tells  them  to  submit  themselves  to 
those  of  the  house  of  Stephanas,  and  to  all  such. 

The  fourth  extract,  where  St.  Paul  says  he  had  not  dominion 
over  the  faith  of  his  brethren,  was  intended  simply  to  state  that 
the  apostle  acted  in  a  subordinate  capacity,  and  not  in  his  own 
right.  Dominion  is  defined  to  be  "  sovereign  or  supreme  au- 
thority." (Webster.)  No  one  could  have  dominion  over  faith 
but  God.  The  right  of  a  subordinate  officer  to  decide  the  proper 
construction  of  the  law,  and  to  say  what  was  faith  as  defined  by  it, 
does  not  give  him  dominion  over  the  faith.  To  have  dominion 
over  faith  is  to  say  what  it  shall  be,  not  what  it  is.  It  is"  the  power 
to  create,  not  the  power  simply  to  declare.  The  Council  of  Jerusa- 
lem did  not  claim  any  dominion  over  faith,  but  only  the  right  to  de- 
clare what  it  was,  as  previously  established  by  another  and  higher 
power.  So  with  St.  Paul.  It  was  so  with  Paul  and  Barnabas, 
when  the  people  wished  to  sacrifice  to  them  as  Gods.  They  de 
clared  they  were  not  Gods — that  they  did  not  act  for  themselves, 
but  were  only  subordinate  agents.  The  apostle  certainly  did 
not  assume  to  create  faith,  while  he  as  certainly  did  assume  the 
right  to  declare  what  was,  and  what  was  not,  of  faith.  He  did 
not  mean  to  say  to  these  same  brethren,  whose  errors  of  con- 
struction he  had  expressly  corfdemned  in  his  first  Epistle,  that  he 
had  usurped  authority  not  granted  to  him. 

In  the  fifth  extract  the  apostle  tells  those  of  his  brethren  who 
lack  wisdom,  how  they  can  obtain  it. 

The  prayer  of  faith  is,  no  doubt,  one  means  of  obtaining 
Christian  wisdom ;  but  it  is  not  the  only  means  pointed  out  in 
the  law,  and  is  not  exclusive  of  those  other  means  mentioned  in 
other  portions  of  the  Written  Word.  The  existence  of  this 
means  is  not  incompatible  with  the  existence  of  the  others.  It 
is  said  in  one  place  that  we  are  saved  by  faith ;  in  another,  by 
baptism  ;  in  another  still,  by  grace.  One  does  not  exclude  th,e 
others.  We  must  put  them  all  together,  and  give  force  and  ef- 
fect to  all,  so  that  all  may  stand,  and  the  will  of  the  lawmaker 
be  consistently  carried  out  in  all  things,  as  He  unquestionably 
intended  to  accomplish  some  good  purpose  by  each  and  all. 
The  apostle  James  did  not  intend  to  contradict  his  own  practice 


172  THE   INFALLIBILITY   OF   THE   CHUKCH. 

in  the  Council  of  Jerusalem,  nor  the  command  of  Christ  to  hear 
the  Church,  nor  those  of  St.  Paul  to  obey  the  rulers  of  the 
Church,  nor  those  of  St.  Peter  to  follow  their  under-shepherds, 
nor  the  test  given  by  St.  John,  that  they  who  heard  not  the 
rulers  of  the  Church  were  false  prophets. 

But  this  wisdom  was  only  promised  to  the  prayer  of  faith 
If  the  member  did  not  pray  with  faith,  he  could  not  obtain  the 
desired  wisdom.  In  that  case,  had  the  Church  still  no  power  to 
expel  him  as  a  heretic  ?  And  if  the  Church  had  such  power,  by 
what  test  or  standard  was  she  to  ascertain  the  fact  ?  She  could 
not  see  into  his  heart,  and  know  his  secret  intentions,  except 
from  the  fact  that  he  did  not  hold  the  proper  faith. 

If  the  failure  to  pray  with  faith  only  affected  the  individual 
himself,  and  not  the  association  in  any  material  respect,  then  the 
right  to  judge  and  expel  him  as  a  heretic  would  not  be  necessary 
or  useful.  But  one  of  the  objects  of  expelling  heretics  was  to 
preserve  the  faith  of  others.  Heresy  is  a  crime  that,  in  its  very 
nature,  affects  the  integrity  of  the  institution  itself;  for  while 
the  party  is  allowed  to  speak  as  a  member,  and  at  the  same  time 
to  set  the  authority  of  the  Church  at  defiance,  his  power  of  evil 
is  much  greater  than  it  is  after  he  is  condemned  as  a  criminal, 
and  left  only  to  speak  as  such.  That  theory  cannot  be  true, 
which  permits  each  member  to  determine  for  himself,  in  the  last 
resort,  whether  he  has  prayed  with  faith,  and  has  received  the 
requisite  wisdom.  If  that  theory  be  true,  then  how  could  Tim- 
othy and  Titus  have  tried  and  rejected  those  unruly  and  vain 
talkers  and  deceivers — those  factionists,  who  created  divisions 
by  preaching  a  false  faith  ?  When  called  upon,  each  could  have 
said :  "  I  have  prayed  for  wisdom  with  faith,  and  have  obtained 
it."  How  could  Timothy  and  Titus  have  determined  whether 
this  statement  was  true  or  false,  except  by  testing  their  faith  by 
the  law,  as  construed  by  the  proper  authority?  Using  this 
testy  they  could  well  say :  "  Your  faith  is  not  true,  and,  there- 
fore, you  could  not  have  asked  in  faith  for  true  wisdom." 

In  reference  to  the  sixth  passage,  it  will  readily  be  seen  that 
it  does  not  at  all  conflict  with  the  ultimate  right  of  the  Church  to 
construe  the  code  for  all.  The  Scriptures  may  be  profitable  to 
the  individual  reader,  who  is  allowed  to  construe  in  the  first  in- 
stance. A  very  large  portion  of  them  is  taken  up  in  the  simple 


THE   INFALLIBILITY    OF   THE   CHURCH.  173 

relation  of  the  most  touching  incidents  connected  \vith  God's 
early  dealings  with  His  chosen  people — of  signal  displays  of  mer- 
cy, and  the  infliction  of  punishment.  There  are  numerous  bio- 
graphical sketches,  (or  history  teaching  by  example,)  of  re- 
nowned and  faithful  servants  of  God.  The  New  Testament 
contains  the  simple  narrative  of  the  birth,  life,  death,  and  resur- 
rection of  our  Saviour,  and  the  history  of  the  labors  and  suffer- 
ings of  the  early  saints.  Besides  the  historical  portions,  there 
are  many  plain  and  simple  commands,  and  many  edifying  in- 
stances of  faith  and  humility.  But  after  all  the  plain  portions 
of  the  Written  Word,  there  are  some  things  hard  to  be  under- 
stood that  must  still  be  understood. 

§  18.  Another  objection  considered. 

The  prophet  Isaiah,  speaking  of  the  future  way  of  holiness, 
uses  this  language  : 

"  And  an  highway  shall  be  there,  and  a  way,  and  it  shall  be 
called  the  way  of  holiness ;  the  unclean  shall  not  pass  over  it, 
but  it  shall  be  for  those  :  the  way-faring  men,  though  fools,  shall 
not  err  therein."  (Chap.  xxxv.  8.) 

Now,  is  it  not  evident  that  the  way  spoken  of  by  the  prophet 
is  plain,  and  so  plain,  that  a  fool  shall  not  err  therein  ?  And  if 
the  Scriptures  alone  constitute  this  way,  it  follows  that  they 
must  also  be  plain,  otherwise  the  way  mentioned  could  not  be 
plain.  But  if  the  Scriptures  are  plain  and  easily  understood  in 
all  needful  particulars,  was  not  St.  Peter  plainly  mistaken  when 
he  plainly  asserted  the  contrary  ?  How  then  shall  we  reconcile 
these  apparently  contradictoiy  passages  ?  Is  there  any  neces- 
sary contradiction  ?  May  not  the  way  itself  be  plain,  and  the 
Scriptures  still  contain  some  things  hard  to  be  understood  ? 
There  must  be  some  way  left  to  arrive  at  a  just  conclusion. 

I  suppose  the  path  of  duty  may  be  plain  to  a  citizen  of  the 
United  States,  although  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  coun- 
try contain  some  things  hard  to  be  understood.  And  this  path 
is  plain,  for  the  reason  that  the  same  Constitution  provides  means 
to  make  the  application  plain,  of  that  which  is  not  plain  of  it- 
self. And  may  it  not  be  so  in  reference  to  the  Scriptures,  con- 
ceding, for  the  sake  of  the  argument  only,  that  they  contain  the 
entire  code  now  obligatory  ?  The  law  may  not  all  be  plain  in 


174:  TEE   INFALLIBILITY   OF   THE   CHUECH. 

itself,  but  the  application  of  it  may  be  made  plain  to  the  party 
governed,  by  judicial  decisions. 

Now  does  not  the  theory  that  assumes  the  existence  of  an 
infallible  tribunal  for  the  construction  and  application  of  the  law, 
perfectly  reconcile  these  merely  apparent  discrepancies,  and 
leave  all  the  passages  in  full  and  harmonious  force  ?  And  is  it 
not  the  only  theory  that  does  produce  this  result  ?  or  that  can 
produce  it  ?  The  prophet  did  not  assert  that  the  Scriptures 
were  plain.  He  only  asserted  that  the  way  was  plain. 

We  have  endeavored  to  show  that  the  true  character  of 
Scripture,  as  of  every  system  of  law,  is  simplicity  in  many  things, 
and  obscurity  in  some.  Among  the  most  simple  portions  of 
Scripture  are  the  historical  narratives,  and  some  of  the  com- 
mands and  promises.  If,  then,  these  plain  portions  lead  the 
honest  and  diligent  inquirer,  aided  by  common  sense,  experience, 
and  natural  reason,  as  well  as  by  other  proofs  from  history,  to 
the  infallible  guide  provided  by  the  system  itself,  the  way  is 
plain,  although  the  Scriptures  are  not  entirely  so.  If  the  Scrip- 
tures be  plain  in  those  respects  which  lead  the  inquirer  to  the 
competent  tribunal,  then  it  is  clear  that  the  way  is  plain,  whether 
all  the  Scripture  be  plain  or  not. 

Any  way  is  plain  with  a  competent  guide.  When  the 
Eunuch  could  not  understand  the  Old  Scriptures  without  a 
guide,  the  way  was  made  plain  to  him  when  he  selected  Philip 
as  his  guide,  and  followed  him.  The  way  for  the  Corinthian 
brethren  was  made  plain  by  the  aid  of  St.  Paul,  when  he  con- 
strued and  applied  the  law  to  the  particular  cases  of  error  exist- 
ing among  them.  He  said  to  them  plainly — Paul  is  not  the 
way — Cephas  is  not  the  way — Apollos  is  not  the  way,  but  Christ 
is  the  way.  And  when  the  Gentile  brethren  were  so  much  dis- 
tressed in  regard  to  circumcision,  the  way  was  made  plain  to 
them  by  the  decision  of  the  Council  of  Jerusalem.  The  Council 
said  plainly — circumcision  is  not  the  way. 

And  it  must  be  apparent,  that  the  existence  and  authority 
of  this  infallible  guide,  would  fully  carry  out  the  prediction  of 
the  prophet,  and  yet  not  contradict  St.  Peter.  The  guide  be- 
ing accessible  to  all,  and  equally  competent  to  give  the  same 
information  to  all,  we  can  well  understand  how  even  a  fool 
should  not  err  in  this  way.  A  way  that  is  furnished  with  a 


THE    INFALLIBILITY    OF    THE    CHUKCH.  175 

competent  guide  along  its  whole  route,  may  well  be  called  plain. 
This  guide  places  all  travellers  upon  a  perfect  equality.  They 
have  all  the  same  means  of  finding  the  way.  The  differences  in 
the  natural  powers  and  opportunities  of  each,  are  all  equalized 
by  this  guide. 

In  reference  to  this  guide,  Bishop  Porteus  very  confidently 
says :  "  Romanists  themselves  own  that  men  must  use  their  eyes 
to  find  this  guide  ;  why  then  must  they  put  them  out  to  follow 
him  ?  "  Truly,  they  should  not  put  them  out  at  all ;  but  surely, 
they  should  only  employ  them  in  following  their  guide.  If  one 
needs  a  guide  and  finds  him,  he  had  better  follow  him.  The 
very  idea  of  a  guide,  shows  a  man  cannot,  with  his  own  eyes, 
find  the  way.  A  man  may  be  very  competent  to  find  a  good 
lawyer,  a  good  physician,  or  pilot,  without  being  himself  com- 
petent to  discharge  the  duties  of  these  professions. 

It  must  be  conceded  by  every  candid  mind,  that  the  way  of 
Christian  faith  and  duty  should  be  plain  to  the  inquirer  who  is 
faithftil  and  true  to  himself;  for,  while  he  is  true  to  himself,  he 
cannot  be  false  to  any  other  being,  or  to  truth  itself.  If  we 
take  the  Scriptures  as  construed  by  each  individual  for  himself 
in  the  last  resort,  as  the  sole  way,  then  the  inexorable  rules  of 
logic  require  us  to  assume, fthat  the  Scriptures  are  plain  and 
easily  understood  by  all  of  every  grade  of  capacity.  But  this 
crippling  and  mutilating  theory  does  the  utmost  injustice  to 
the  lawgiver,  by  forgetting  that  his  code  must  be  complete, 
while  the  way  is  plain.  The  system  must  attain  the  great,  and 
extensive,  and  perfect  ends  sought ;  and  this  cannot  be  done  by 
a,  code  containing  so  few  and  so  simple  provisions,  as  to  be  per- 
fectly plain  to  all  unaided  capacities,  under  all  circumstances. 
The  code  must  be  complete  by  containing  all  the  provisions 
necessary  to  reach  the  perfect  ends  sought ;  and  this  cannot  be 
done  except  by  the  aid  of  an  infallible  tribunal. 

To  assume  that  a  supernatural  system  should  contain  nothing 
but  plain  truths,  equally  within  the  unaided  reach  of  all,  is  sub- 
stantially to  assume  that  God  could  not  reveal  any  high  and 
sublime  truths  to  man,  and  that  His  revealed  law  could  contain 
no  mysteries.  On  the  contrary,  it  would  seem  plain  to  good 
sense,  that  if  God  made  any  direct  revelation  to  mankind,  He 
would  reveal  many  truths  of  so  sublime  a  character,  as  to  fill 


176  THE    INFALLIBILITY    OF    THE    GlIUiiUH. 

and  test  the  highest  capacity  of  the  human  mind  ;  not  only  for 
the  purpose  of  giving  us  some  idea  of  the  character  of  Infinite 
Wisdom,  but  some  conception  of  the  blessedness  of  that  state 
which  is  to  come. 

But  the  Catholic  theory  is  the  only  one  that  makes  the  way 
plain,  while  the  code  is  left  complete  and  full,  in  every  particu- 
lar. It  makes  the  way  plain,  not  by  mutilating  the  law,  but  by 
elevating  the  minds  and  judgments  of  all  to  the  same  infallible 
standard  of  construction.  This  theory  unites  and  combines,  in 
harmonious  consistency,  every  element  of  a  plain,  but  full,  com- 
plete, and  perfect  system,  in  every  respect. 

It  seems  from  the  reasons  and  authorities  given  in  the  pre- 
ceding pages,  that  the  Christians  in  the  days  of  the  apostles, 
had  the  same  means  of  arriving  at  the  true  interpretation  of  the 
words  in  which  the  law  of  Christ  had  been  promulgated,  as  the 
citizens  of  the  United  States,  and  of  all  the  civilized  govern- 
ments of  earth,  have  of  ascertaining  the  correct  construction  of 
the  laws  of  the  country.  When  the  Christians  of  those  days 
misconstrued  the  law,  their  construction  was  overruled  by  those 
who  had  the  rule  over  them ;  and,  when  the  misconstruction 
arose  among  the  teachers  themselves,  a  council  was  called  to 
consider  of  the  matter,  and  their  error  infallibly  corrected. 
Nothing  could  be  more  consistent  and  logical  than  this  efficiert 
process,  founded  and  based,  as  it  is,  upon  the  simplest  principles 
whereon  all  society  must  rest.  When  a  teacher  of  science  is  in- 
structing his  pupil,  he  puts  into  his  hands  a  treatise  upon  the 
science  intended  to  be  taught ;  and  yet  he  overrules  all  miscon- 
structions of  the  student.  And  nothing  could  be  more  simple 
and  reasonable  than  the  question  asked  by  the  Eunuch  of  Philip. 
The  latter  had  asked  the  former  this  question  :  "  Understandest 
thou  what  thou  readest  ?  "  The  Eunuch  answered :  "  How  can 
I,  except  some  man  should  guide  me  ?  " 

§  19.  A  passage  from  St.  Peter  examined. 

In  this  connection,  it  becomes  necessary  to  notice  a  very 
clear  passage  from  the  Second  Epistle  of  St.  Peter,  which  seems 
to  be  a  conclusive  proof  of  the  correctness  of  the  position  we 
have  taken  ;  namely :  that  the  right  of  private  interpretation  in 
the  last  resort,  does  not,  and  cannot,  exist  hi  the  Christian  sys- 


THE   INFALLIBILITY   OF   THE   CHURCH.  177 

tern,  any  more  than  it  does  or  can  exist  in  any  other  system  of 
law. 

The  apostle,  after  telling  his  brethren  that  they  would  do 
well  to  take  heed  to  the  sure  word  of  prophecy,  says  : 

"  Knowing  this  first,  that  no  prophecy  of  the  Scripture  is  of 
any  private  interpretation.  For  the  prophecy  came  not  in  old 
time  by  the  will  of  man :  but  holy  men  of  God  spake  as  they 
were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost." 

The  prophecies  to  be  interpreted  were  those  of  Scripture. 
The  word  interpretation  is  one  of  the  most  definite  and  certain 
in  the  language.  When  applied  to  prophecy,  it  is  defined  to  be, 
"  the  act  of  expounding  or  unfolding  what  is  not  understood  or 
not  obvious."  (Webster.)  So,  the  word  private  in  this  connec- 
tion, i.  €.,  "  private  interpretation,"  is  equally  definite  and  cer- 
tain, and  must  mean  "  individual ;  personal ;  in  contradistinc- 
tion from  public  or  national."  (Webster.)  The  phrase  "  pri- 
vate interpretation  "  would  seem  too  plain  to  be  misunderstood ; 
and,  therefore,  the  apostle  denies  the  right  of  interpretation  to 
•ndividual  members. 

It  cannot  be  said  that  the  context  shows  another  meaning ; 
because  we  cannot  resort  t<^  the  context,  when  the  words  are 
clear  and  definite,  and  need  no  explanation.  But  when  we  look 
to  the  context,  we  can  see  nothing  to  change  the  clear  signifi- 
cation of  the  terms  used. 

When  we  look  into  the  whole  spirit  and  drift  of  this  second 
Epistle  of  St.  Peter,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  great  leading  object 
had  in  view  by  the  apostle,  was  to  strengthen  the  brethren  in 
the  faith — to  point  out  the  danger  of  heresy,  the  character  of 
those  who  would  introduce  it,  and  how  it  might  be  avoided. 
For  these  purposes,  he  first  speaks  of  the  character  of  the  true 
faith  and  its  blessed  consequences,  and  then  gives  them  the 
proofs  of  its  divine  origin,  by  referring  to  the  testimony  given 
of  Christ  from  heaven  on  the  Holy  Mount,  and  also  the  testi- 
mony of  the  holy  prophets ;  and  that  they  might  know  how  to 
use  this  testimony  properly,  and  to  caution  them  against  the 
errors  of  those  he  afterwards  describes,  he  tells  them,  "  Know- 
ing this  first,  that  no  prophecy  of  Scripture  is  of  any  private  in- 
t  erpretation ; "  and  then  gives  them  the  reason  why  it  is  not 
to,  because  it  did  not  come  by  the  will  of  man,  but  of  God,  and 
17 


178  THE    INFALLIBILITY    OF   THE    CHURCH. 

beino-  His  Word,  was  not  the  subject  of  private  interpretation, 
as  if  it  were  the  word  of  man,  but  was  subject  to  the  interpreta- 
tion of  His  authorized  teachers,  in  the  same  way  as  the  doc- 
trines of  the  new  dispensation,  which  the  apostles  and  elders 
taught. 

Pursuing  the  same  train  of  reasoning,  he  then  tells  them  of 
"  false  teachers,  who  privily  shall  bring  in  damnable  heresies," 
that  they  are  "presumptuous  and  self-willed"" — that  "they 
speak  evil  of  the  things  that  they  understand  not  " — that  "  they 
allure  those  that  were  clear  escaped  from  them  who  live  in  er- 
ror " — and  "  while  they  promise  them  liberty,  they  themselves 
are  the  servants  of  corruption."  How  well  this  description  ot 
these  false  teachers  agrees  with  that  of  St.  Paul,  where  he 
speaks  of  the  "  unruly  and  vain  talkers  and  deceivers,  whose 
mouths  must  be  stopped,"  in  his  Epistle  to  Titus.  The  apostle 
Peter  then  goes  on  to  say,  that  his  object  was  to  remind  them 
of  the  words  of  the  holy  prophets  and  of  the  "  commandment 
of  the  apostles  " — the  teachers  of  the  church  ;  and  in  the  close 
of  his  epistle,  he  gives  them  an  instance  of  the  evil  of  private 
interpretation  in  those  "  unlearned  and  unstable  "  persons,  who 
wrest  the  Scriptures  to  their  own  destruction. 

But  a  friend  has  sent  me  the  passage  as  quoted,  if  I  am  not 
mistaken,  from  the  translation  of  George  Campbell,  thus  : 

"Knowing  this  first,  that  no  prophecy  of  Scripture  is  of  any 
private  impulse,  for  never  at  any  time  was  prophecy  brought 
by  the  will  of  man ;  but  holy  men  spake,  being  moved  by  the 
Holy  Spirit." 

The  difference  between  the  two  translations  is  most  palpa- 
ble. No  two  terms  in  the  language  could,  perhaps,  convey  to 
the  mind  more  different  ideas  than  those  of  interpretation  and 
impulse  in  the  connection  in  which  they  stand.  The  first  is  the 
act  of  the  individual  in  expounding  or  unfolding  prophecy ;  the 
second  is  not  the  act  of  the  individual  at  all,  but  "  force  com- 
municated" or  "influence  acting  on  the  mind."  (Webster.) 

As  to  the  merits  of  the  different  translations,  I  cannot 
speak  from  any  knowledge  of  the  original.  But  I  must  say  it 
seems  rather  remarkable,  that  the  Catholic,  and  nearly  all  the 
Protestant  translations,  should  agree  in  their  rendering  "  pri- 
vate interpretation,"  if  this  new  translation  be  correct.  This 


THE    INFALLIBILITY    OF   THE   CHURCH.  179 

passage  as  translated,  has  been  relied  upon  by  Catholic  writers 
from  the  beginning  of  the  Reformation,  and  all  Protestant 
translators  were  fully  aware  of  the  force  of  the  passage  against 
their  theory  of  private  interpretation ;  and  it  is  certainly  re- 
markable that  the  error  in  the  translation  of  so  decisive  a  pas- 
sage, was  not  discovered  before.  Besides  this,  the  translation 
seems  incorrect  upon  its  face.  If  this  new  translation  be  cor- 
rect, then  it  was  intended  by  the  apostle,  in  this  part  of  the 
passage,  to  put  the  phrase  "  private  impulse  "  in  contrast  with 
that  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  term  private  would  not  be  accu- 
rate, as  it  would  not  exclude  public  interpretation  or  public 
impulse.  The  word  "human,"  in  that  case,  would  only  be 
correct. 

But  this  most  material  difference  in  the  translation  of  so  im- 
portant, and  it  would  seem,  so  plain  a  passage,  must  cause  a 
feeling  of  the  most  painful  uncertainty  in  the  mind  of  every  sin- 
cere believer,  who  trusts  to  his  own  interpretation,  without  any 
guide,  but  that  of  translations  so  liable  to  err.  Nothing  could 
more  forcibly  show  the  invincible  necessity  of  some  infallible 
tribunal,  than  this  very  case  of  gross  error.  Or  if  it  be  not  a 
gross  error,  then  of  the  extreme  uncertainty  of  human  language, 
and  of  the  extreme  danger  of  relying  alone  upon  a  medium  so 
imperfect,  when  eternity  is  at  stake.  Our  Lord  and  His  apos- 
tles promulgated  the  code  in  only  one  or  two  languages,  when 
the  system  was  intended  to  embrace  all  kindreds  and  tongues 
of  all  ages ;  and  if  we  must  rely  upon  mere  fallible  and  disputed 
translations,  and  constructions  of  those  translations,  then  we 
lean  upon  a  feeble  reed.  The  mistranslation  of  a  single  word 
may  entirely  change  the  sense  of  the  most  important  passage. 
The  present  case  is  a  good  illustration. 

§  20.  The  visible  Church  is  but  a  preparatory  institution 
through  which  men  must  pass  to  reach  the  Church  triumph- 
ant in  heaven. 

If  the  principle  be  correct,  that  Christ  established  but  one 
church,  intending  there  should  exist  perfect  unity  in  it  as  a  ne- 
cessary means  of  its  purity  of  faith,  and  of  its  rightful  success  in 
the  world,  and  that  He  gave  but  one  law  for  its  government, 
and  one  infallible  tribunal  for  the  interpretation  and  application 


J>  iO  THE   INFALLIBILITY   OF   THE   CHUKOH. 

of  the  code,  it  follows,  that  this  visible  Church  is  but  a  prepara- 
tory institution  on  earth,  through  which  men  must  pass  to  the 
church  triumphant  in  heaven.  It  would  seem  plain  that  Christ 
could  not  be  the  author  of  confusion,  or  the  founder  of  an  im- 
becile institution ;  and  that  truth  must  ever  be  a  unit,  and  not 
contradictory  and  confused,  as  error  often  is.  Whatever  sys- 
tem He  did  establish  must  have  been  but  one.  The  whole  rea 
son,  drift,  and  spirit  of  the  system,  show  its  perfect  UNITY  OF 
DESIGN.  The  Eternal  Mind  could  never  build  a  house  divid- 
ed against  itself. 

And  when  we  turn  from  reason  to  the  express  testimonies 
of  Scripture,  they  are  equally  explicit.  Our  Lord  speaking  of 
the  Church,  says,  "  One  fold,  one  shepherd ;  "  so  that  the  fold 
must  be  one  and  only  one  as  the  shepherd  is  one  and  only  one. 
But  He  also  prayed  for  those  who  should  believe  on  Him  "  that 
they  might  be  one."  And  St.  Paul  says  of  the  Church :  "  So 
we,  being  many,  are  one  body  in  Christ,  and  every  one  mem- 
bers of  another."  (Rom.  xii.  5,)  So,  he  also  says :  "  One  body, 
one  spirit,  one  hope,  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism."  (Eph. 
iv.  4,  5.) 

But  in  addition  to  these  explicit  texts,  when  we  come  to 
look  at  the  practice  of  the  apostles  and  other  early  teachers  of 
Christianity,  we  shall  find  it  in  perfect  accordance  with  this  sen- 
timent. They  gathered  into  the  Church  all  whom  they  were 
willing  to  call  and  treat  as  members  of  the  true  fold.  And  we 
are  told  that  the  converts  made  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  "  con- 
tinued steadfastly  in  the  apostle's  doctrine  and  fellowship;" 
and  that  "  the  Lord  added  to  the  church  daily  such  as  should 
be  saved."  (Acts  ii.  42,  47.)  These  passages  are  very  explicit. 
Such  persons  as  should  be  saved,  were  added  to  the  Church. 
Why  does  St.  Luke  couple  salvation  with  addition  to  the 
Church,  if  such  addition  was  not  material,  and  salvation  could 
oo  found  outside  the  Church  ? 

We  also  find  the  different  apostles  deploring  divisions  in  the 
Church  as  one  of  the  greatest  of  evils,  and  St.  Paul  delivering 
Hymeneus  and  Alexander  unto  Satan,  that  they  might  learn 
not  to  blaspheme.  (1  Tim.  i.  20.)  The  whole  history  of  the 
Apostolic  Church,  shows  that  it  was  ever  regarded  but  as  one, 
and  that  they  who  expected  to  reach  heaven,  must  do  it  through 


THE   INFALLIBILITY    OF   THE    CHURCH.  181 

this  one  Church.  Christ  said  distinctly,  after  first  commanding 
all  the  truth  to  be  preached,  "  He  that  believeth  not  shall  be 
damned ; "  and  St.  Paul  says  as  explicitly,  "  Without  faith  it  is 
impossible  to  please  God ; "  and  he  tells  his  Corinthian  brethren 
not  to  keep  company  or  to  eat  with  any  man  called  a  brother 
who  was  guilty  of  certain  offences  mentioned ;  and  St.  John,  the 
apostle  of  charity,  forbids  the  faithful  to  receive  him  into  their 
houses,  or  even  to  bid  him  God  speed,  who  bringeth  not  this 
doctrine  of  Christ.  (Mark  xvi.  16,  1  Cor.  v.  11,  2  John  i.  10.) 

§  21.  Is  not  this  theory  intolerant? 

But  is  not  this  theory  intolerant  ?  Is  it  not  illiberal  ?  It 
may  be  so.  But  was  there  ever  a  system  of  just  law,  or  of 
truth,  in  the  universe,  that  was  not  inflexible  and  intolerant  f 
Must  that  which  is  true  yield  to  that  which  is  false  ?  How 
could  Christ  make  any  law  but  that  which  is  just  f  And  how 
can  He  fail  to  execute  a  just  law  f  Is  He  not  bound  by  the  ir- 
resistible force  of  His  own  attributes  to  execute  justice  ?  Has 
He  not  pledged,  in  advance^  His  eternal  veracity,  that  not  one 
jot  or  tittle  of  the  law  should  fail  ?  How  can  a  lawgiver,  after 
he  has  said,  "  you  must  do  this,  and  you  must  not  do  that,  and 
this  shall  be  the  consequence  of  your  disobedience,"  fail  to  fulfil 
his  word,  unless  he  is  not  to  be  believed  ?  For  what  purpose 
is  government  instituted  ?  Is  it  to  indulge  and  excuse  men  who 
will  not  learn  ?  What  sort  of  a  system  would  it  be,  that  had 
so  little  truth  in  it,  and  so  little  claim  to  respect,  that,  after  lay- 
ing down  positive  rules  in  positive  terms  for  both  faith  and  act, 
still  did  not  require  those  rules  to  be  believed  and  obeyed  ? 
The  laws  of  civil  government  require  every  man  to  know  the 
law.  "  Ignorance  of  the  law  excuseth  no  man,"  is  the  fixed 
maxim  of  the  code.  And  if  ignorance  of  the  law  did  excuse  a 
man,  who  would  care  to  know  the  law  ?  The  law  favors  the 
diligent  and  obedient,  not  the  idle  and  disobedient. 

And  when  we  refer  to  the  laws  of  nature,  we  find  them 
equally  inflexible,  except  when  God  Himself  pleases  to  suspend 
;>r  overcome.  If  a  man  ignorantly  violates  the  laws  of  nature, 
ne  must  suffer.  It  is  his  duty,  his  interest,  his  business  to 
learn,  and  he  has  the  means  of  doing  so.  He  cannot  expect  to 


182  THE    INFALLIBILITY    OF   THE    CHURCH. 

escape,  when  others  do  not.     No  man  can  lift  himself  above  the 
laws  of  nature  or  of  truth,  except  at  his  own  peril. 

"  Shall  gravitation  cease  if  you  go  by  ?  " 

And  with  respect  to  that  perfect  law  of  Christ,  why  should 
it  not  require  the  same  implicit  obedience  ?  For  what  noble 
purpose  was  this  law  given,  and  why  is  it  impossible  without 
faith  to  please  God,  if  the  law  is  not  to  be  believed  ?  Heaven 
being  the  free  gift  of  God,  He  had  the  right  to  fix  the  terms 
upon  which  it  should  be  attained.  He  had  the  right  to  deter- 
mine what  acts  and  belief  He  would  consider  as  merit,  although 
they  were  not  meritorious  in  themselves,  but  only  so  when 
judged  by  a  system  established  and  given  through  grace. 

That  it  is  but  reasonable  and  just  that  God  should  govern 
the  universe,  there  would  seem  to  be  no  doubt,  unless  we  can 
deny  that  He  created  it.  And  when  He  makes  known  His  law, 
and  gives  men  sufficient  evidence  of  the  fact,  and  they  refuse  to 
believe  and  obey,  ought  they  to  be  rewarded  for  this  ?  It  is 
(if  there  be  any  difference  in  the  two  cases)  a  greater  sin  to  say 
to  God,  "  I  will  not  believe  you,"  than  to  say,  "  I  will  not  obey 
you  ; "  for  in  the  first  case  you  impeach  His  veracity,  while  in 
the  second  you  deny  His  authority.  So  far  as  the  government 
of  God  is  concerned,  heresy  is  just  as  much  a  sin  as  any  other, 
though  it  may  differ  in  degree. 

And  as  to  liberality,  it  is  like  taste.  It  is  a  thing  not  found 
in  law,  which  assumes  to  be  predicated  of  justice,  not  of  liberal- 
ity. Liberality  has  no  measure  or  limit  but  the  ideal  standard 
of  each  individual.  The  infidel  thinks  it  remarkably  hard  that 
he  cannot  be  permitted  to  enter  heaven,  when  he  believes  the 
system  which  promises  it  to  be  a  cunningly  devised  fable.  The 
gay,  the  worldly-minded  irich,  the  proud  and  vain,  think  any  sys- 
tem that  requires  any  personal  sacrifices  of  them  in  this  life,  and 
in  default  of  which  debars  them  of  heaven  in  the  next,  exceed- 
ingly illiberal ;  and  especially  do  they  think  that  system  illiber- 
al, which  permits  the  suffering,  humble,  and  pious  poor  to  go 
into  heaven  before  them.  They  desire  the  best  in  this  world 
and  the  best  in  the  next  ;  both  of  which  may  be  very  natural, 
but  not  very  just,  and,  therefore,  not  very  likely  to  succeed  with 
the  Just  Judge.  And  so  the  Universalist  thinks  that  it  is  ex* 


THE   INFALLIBILITY    OF   THE   CHURCH.  183 

ceedingly  illiberal  not  to  admit  all  men  into  heaven,  sooner  or 
later.  And  so  of  every  other  class  in  the  world.  As  the  acute 
Calhoun  once  said  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  "  there  is 
no  accounting  for  taste  in  this  world."  The  same  is  true  of  lib- 
erality. It  is  a  thing  as  undefinable  as  the  ten  thousand  opinions 
regarding  it.  All  states  and  all  heads  can  conceive  something 
concerning  it,  but  no  two  heads  can  ever  understand  it  in  the 
same  way.  "  My  doxy  is  heterodoxy  with  you,  and  your  doxy 
is  heterodoxy  with  me."  So  long,  then,  as  men  make  their  ideas 
of  liberality  the  standard  of  truth,  they  never  can  arrive  at  any 
unity  of  faith  or  belief. 

There  is  no  illustration  more  often  used  by  latitudinarians 
than  this,  that  we  are  all  travelling  different  roads  to  the  same 
point — we  all  aim  to  get  to  heaven,  and  only  go  there  by  differ- 
ent paths.  But,  unfortunately,  there  is  but  one  way  mentioned, 
and  he  that  climbeth  up  some  other  way  is  not  entitled  to  enter, 
because  he  is  a  thief  and  a  robber.  And  there  is  not  only  but 
one  way,  but  that  way  is  straight  and  narrow,  and  few  there  be 
that  find  it.  There  cannot  be  two  or  more,  as  only  one  straight 
way  can  exist  between  tsvo  given  points.  From  one  place  to 
another,  in  this  world,  there  may  be  many  devious  ways, 

"  But  'tis  not  so  above." 

God  made  both  earth  and  heaven,  and  opened  up  the  only  way 
that  leads  from  the  one  to  the  other ;  therefore,  whoever  reaches 
that  happy  abode,  must  travel  this  provided  way. 

And  is  not  that  theory  of  mere  apparent  mercy,  in  itself,  the 
most  delusive  cruelty  ?  There  is  nothing,  perhaps,  in  this  world, 
that  has  done  more  injury  than  mistaken  mercy.  The  jury  that 
acquits  the  guilty  culprit  through  mistaken  'sympathy,  and  turns 
him  again  loose  upon  society,  commits  a  cruel  act.  It  is  mercy 
to  the  guilty,  and  cruelty  to  the  innocent.  It  is  a  confusion  of 
all  just  distinctions,  or  rather,  a  reversal  of  all  just  distinctions. 

To  assume  that  the  way  to  heaven  is  wider  than  it  rt,atty  is, 
must  be  the  greatest  of  all  mistakes.  It  is  certain  that  such  as- 
sumption, however  flattering  to  our  pride  and  vanity,  will  not 
widen  the  way,  in  fact.  It  forever  remains  as  narrow  as  be- 
fore, and  the  same  prediction  still  inexorably  exists,  few  there 
be  that  find  it.  And  the  more  men  are  taught  to  believe  that 


184  THE   INFALLIBILITY    OF   THE   CHURCH. 

Christianity  consists  mainly  in  good  conduct,  and  not  in  both 
faith  and  works,  the  more  faith  is  degraded  from  its  due  impor- 
tance in  the  system,  and  the  more  God  is  robbed  of  the  homage 
due  to  Him,  and  the  more  infidelity  and  disunion  are  encouraged 
and  propagated.  It  is  a  very  flattering  and  insinuating,  but  de- 
lusive thought,  that  Christian  perfection  consists  mostly  of  good 
conduct-— that  we  can  believe  almost  any  thing — that  there  are 
numerous  roads  to  heaven,  suited  to  the  convenience,  prejudices, 
and  tastes  of  different  travellers — that  God  not  only  gave  His 
only  Son  to  die  for  us,  but  has  given  us  a  wide  latitude  of  belief, 
and  made  so  great  a  variety  of  ways  to  heaven  that  all  can  be 
suited — and  not  only  so,  but  that  these  ways  are  easy,  and  lead 
through  the  flowery  vales  of  earth  to  the 

"  Sweet  fields  beyond  the  swelling  flood." 

But  after  all  that  has  been,  or  can  be  said,  it  must  be  appa- 
rent, at  last,  that  every  system  must  have  some  fundamental 
principles  that  must,  in  the  contemplation  of  the  theory  itself, 
be  inflexible,  or  else  the  theory  must  dispense  with  faith  entire- 
ly, and  only  require  sincerity  and  good  conduct.  And  the  whole 
matter  resolves  itself  into  two  questions:  1.  Was  any  faith  re- 
quired ?  2.  If  so,  what  in  f 

It  must  be  obvious  to  the  reflective  mind,  that  if  a  system 
of  religion  require  faith  at  all,  it  is  just  as  rational  to  require  it 
as  to  all,  as  to  a  part.  The  system  depends  entirely  upon  the 
right  and  authority  of  him  who  founds  it.  When  established 
by  God,  His  authority  is  conclusive.  All  we  desire  to  know  is 
His  will.  This  must  be  obeyed.  It  is,  then,  just  as  reasonable 
that  we  should  all  be  required  to  believe  the  same  things,  and 
join  the  same  Church,  as  to  believe  any  other  article  of  faith,  or 
do  any  other  act  required  by  the  law.  These  requirements  are 
not  unreasonable,  but  are  logical  and  sensible  in  the  very  nature 
of  Christ's  one  kingdom. 

The  idea  that  there  may  be  many  visible  Churches,  each  differ- 
ing from  all  the  others  in  doctrine,  discipline,  and  church  govern- 
ment, and  yet  that  salvation  can  be  found  in  more  than  one,  is,  in 
its  practical  results,  a  cruel  and  mistaken  theory,  for  two  reasons : 

1.  This  assumed  liberality  will  not,  in  point  of  fact,  widen 
the  way. 


THE   INFALLIBILITY    OF   THE   CHURCH.  135 

2.  But  it  leads  to  discords  and  divisions,  and  these  impede 
the  progress  of  religion  in  the  world ;  and,  in  the  end,  actually 
diminishes  the  aggregate  number  of  its  professors. 

A  logical,  united,  and  exclusive  system  is  more  like  truth, 
will  always  produce  the  greatest  ultimate  results,  and  is,  for  that 
reason,  the  best  humanity  at  last.  If  a  man  can  be  made  to  be- 
lieve that  he  can  be  saved  almost  anywhere,  with  almost  any 
sort  of  faith,  he  naturally  becomes  indifferent  to  a  theory  that  is 
indifferent  to  itself.  He  consults  his  tastes,  and  mere  personal 
partialities,  and  joins  those  whom  he  likes  best  as  friends  and 
neighbors.  Religion,  with  him,  becomes  a  secondary  consider- 
ation. It  sinks  down  in  his  estimation,  and  ceases  to  command 
his  genuine  reverence  and  respect.  A  chameleon  theory,  and  a 
gum-elastic  conscience,  are  equally  inconsistent  with  truth  and 
j  ustice. 

Another  reflection  is  this — that  wherever  the  limits  are  fixed, 
they  must,  from  the  nature  of  this  permanent  system,  have  been 
so  fixed  at  the  beginning,  and  must  so  continue  unto  the  end. 
Whatever  was  required  to  be  believed  at  the  beginning,  must 
be  required  to  be  believed  now  and  at  all  future  times.  The 
limits  of  faith  cannot  be  extended  or  contracted,  so  as  to  suit 
this  or  that  one ;  for  if  this  were  done  from  time  to  time,  there 
would  soon  be  but  the  shadow,  and  not  the  substance  of  faith  left. 

This  exclusive  and  rigid  system  is  the  Catholic.  It  is  based 
upon  the  idea  that  Christ  never  did  establish  but  one  Church, 
and  that  the  visible — that  more  than  one  true  Church  never 
was,  and  never  could  be  required,,  and  was  never  contemplated 
by  the  Divine  Founder  of  the  institution  ;  and  that,  as  a  general 
rule,  salvation  must  be  found  in  that  one  Church.  The  theory 
admits  one  exception,  (made  by  the  law  itself,)  in  the  case  of 
invincible  ignorance,  where  a  baptized  person,  without  preju- 
dice, and  with  true  humility  and  perseverance,  has  faithfully 
sought  for  the  entire  truth,  and,  for  want  of  opportunity,  has 
failed  to  find  it. 

§  22.  Testimony  of  the  Fathers. 

I  will  now  quote  from  the  earliest  of  the  Ancient  Fathers, 
those  only  of  the  first  and  second  centuries,  in  support  of  the 
positions  advanced  in  the  preceding  pages. 


186  THE    INFALLIBILITY    OF   THE   CHURCH. 

The  first  quotation  is  from  the  Holy  Clement,  bishop  of 
Rome.  It  is  taken  from  his  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  written 
in' the  first  century,  and  during  the  life  of  St.  John  the  Evan- 
gelist. The  occasion  of  this  epistle,  was  a  schism  existing  in 
that  church. 

"  It  is  shameful,  my  beloved,  it  is  most  shameful,  and  un- 
worthy of  your  Christian  profession,  that  it  should  be  heard 
that  the  most  firm  and  ancient  church  of  the  Corinthians,  on 
account  of  one  or  two  persons,  is  in  a  sedition  against  the 
priests." 

"  Do  ye,  therefore,  who  laid  the  foundation  of  this  sedition, 
submit  yourselves  to  the  priests,  and  be  instructed  unto  repent- 
ance. Bending  the  knees  of  your  hearts,  learn  to  be  subject, 
laying  aside  all  proud  and  arrogant  boasting  of  your  tongues  ; 
for  it  is  better  for  you  to  be  found  in  the  sheepfold  of  Christ, 
little  and  approved,  than,  thinking  yourselves  above  others,  to 
be  cast  out  of  His  hope." 

How  very  similar  is  this  language  to  that  of  Paul,  when  the 
apostle  tells  these  same  brethren  to  "  submit  themselves  unto 
such,  and  to  every  one  that  helpeth  with  us  and  laboreth."  And 
the  holy  Bishop  alludes  to  this  very  Epistle  of  Paul : 

"  Take  up,"  says  he,  "  the  epistle  of  the  blessed  Paul  the 
apostle.  What  did  he  first  write  to  you  at  the  beginning  of 
the  Gospel  ?  Verily  he  did  by  the  Spirit  admonish  you,  both 
concerning  himself,  and  Cephas,  and  Apollos,  because  that  even 
then  ye  had  formed  partialities  amongst  yourselves,"  &c. 

The  means  pointed  out  both  by  the  blessed  apostle  and  the 
holy  bishop,  for  healing  divisions,  were  the  same — submission  to 
them  that  had  the  rule  over  them.  Unfortunately  those  brethren 
had  not  all  obeyed  the  command  of  the  apostle,  and  had  not 
submitted  to  Stephanas  and  the  others,  and  this  departure  from 
his  explicit  commands  led  to  further  divisions,  and  these  ren- 
dered necessary  this  epistle  of  Clement,  the  disciple  of  Paul. 
And  the  eifect  of  this  epistle  was  to  produce  the  unity  contem- 
plated by  the  gospel. 

The  following  extracts  are  from  the  Holy  Martyr  and  Bishop 
Ignatius,  the  friend  of  Saints  Peter  and  John,  and  the  disciple 
of  the  latter : 

"  It  becomes  you  to  concur  in  the  mind  of  your  bishop,  as 


THE   INFALLIBILITY    OF   THE   CHURCH.  187 

also  ye  do.  For  your  famous  presbytery,  worthy  of  God,  is 
knit  as  closely  to  the  bishop,  as  strings  to  a  harp." 

"  Let  no  man  deceive  you ;  if  a  man  be  not  within  the  altar, 
he  faileth  of  the  bread  of  God."  *  *  *  "  Let  us  take  heed, 
therefore,  that  we  do  not  set  ourselves  against  the  bishop,  that 
we  may  be  set  under  God." 

"  For  whomsoever  the  Master  of  the  house  sendeth  to  his 
own  household,  -we  ought  to  receive,  as  Him  that  sent  him.  It 
is  plain,  then,  that  we  ought  to  look  to  the  bishop,  as  to  the  Lord 
Himself"  (Ep.  ad  Eph.) 

*  *  *  «  but,  as  wise  men  in  God,  submitting  to  him  [the 
bishop]  ;  yet  not  to  him,  but  to  the  Father  of  Jesus  Christ,  the 
JBishop  of  all." 

"  For  inasmuch  as  you  are  subject  to  the  bishop  as  to  Jesus 
Christ,  you  seem  to  me  to  be  living  not  according  to  man,  but 
according  to  Jesus  Christ,"  &c. 

"  Guard  against  such  men  (heretics) ;  and  guarded  ye  will 
be,  if  ye  are  not  puffed  up,  nor  separated  from  the  God  Jesus 
Christ,  and  from  the  bishop,  and  from  the  regulations  of  the 
apostles.  He  that  is  within  the  altar  is  pure ;  but  he  that  is 
without,  is  not  pure :  that  is,  he  who  does  aught  apart  from  the 
bishop  and  presbytery  and  deacon,  he  is  not  clean  in  conscience." 
(Ep.  ad  Tralliaus.) 

"  Apart  from  the  bishop  do  nothing :  keep  your  flesh  as  the 
temple  of  God :  love  unity :  avoid  divisions  :  be  ye  followers  of 
Jesus  Christ,  even  as  He  is  of  his  Father."  (Ep.  ad  Phila- 
delph.) 

"  Let  that  be  esteemed  a  sure  Eucharist,  which  is  either  un- 
der the  bishop,  or  him  to  whom  he  may  commit  it.  Where  the 
bishop  is,  there  let  the  multitude  (of  believers)  be ;  even  as 
where  Jesus  Christ  is,  there  is  the  Catholic  church."  (Ep.  ad 
Smyrna3os.) 

"  Give  heed  unto  the  bishop  that  God  may  hearken  unto 
you.  My  soul  for  the  soul  of  those  who  are  in  subjection  to 
the  bishop,  presbyters,  and  deacons,  and  may  my  portion  be 
with  them  in  the  Lord."  (Ep.  ad  Polycarp.) 

"  It  is  fitting  that  you  should,  by  all  means,  glorify  Jesus 
Christ,  who  hath  glorified  you ;  that  by  a  uniform  obedience  ye 
may  be  perfectly  joined  together  in  the  same  mind  and  in  the 


188  THE   INFALLIBILITY   OF   THE   CHURCH. 

same  judgment,  and  may  all  speak  the  same  about  the  same 
thing,  and  that  being  subject  to  the  bishop  and  presbyters,  ye 
may  be  sanctified  in  all  things." 

"  I  exhort  you  that  you  would  all  concur  in  the  mind  of  God ; 
for  Jesus  Christ,  our  inseparable  life,  is  the  mind  of  the  Father  ; 
like  as  the  bishops,  who  have  their  stations  at  the  utmost  bounds 
of  the  earth,  are  after  the  mind  of  Jesus  Christ."  (Ep.  ad  Eph.) 

"  Neither  attempt  ye  any  thing  that  seems  good  to  your  own 
judgment ;  but  let  there  be,  in  the  same  place,  one  prayer,  one 
supplication,  one  mind,  one  hope,  in  love,  in  joy  undefiled. 
There  is  one  Jesus  Christ,  than  whom  nothing  is  better.  Where- 
fore haste  ye  all  together,  as  unto  the  temple  of  God,  as  unto 
one  altar,  as  unto  one  Jesus  Christ,  who  proceeded  from  one 
Father,  and  is  in  one,  and  to  one  returned."  (Ad  Magnes.) 

"  Be  not  deceived,  my  brethren  ;  whosoever  followeth  one 
that  createth  schism,  he  inheriteth  not  the  kingdom  of  God." 

"  Wherefore  I  did  my  part  as  a  man  fitted  for  the  preserving 
of  unity.  For  where  is  division  and  wrath  God  dwelleth  not. 
The  Lord  forgiveth  all  who  repent,  if  their  minds  be  turned 
unto  God's  unity  and  the  council  of  the  bishop."  (Ep.  ad 
Philadelph.) 

From  these  extracts  the  following  points  are,  among  others, 
clearly  established  as  the  faith  of  the  church  in  the  days  of 
Ignatius,  so  far  as  his  testimony  could  establish  any  thing : 

1.  That  the  bishops  over  the  world  held  the  same  faith,  and 
that  Jesus  Christ  was  found  in  this  Catholic  church. 

2.  That  these  bishops  were  held  as  the  servants  or  agents  of 
Christ,  and  were  for  that  reason  to  be  submitted  to  and  obeyed, 
according  to  the  statement  of  Christ :  He  that  despiseth  you 
despiseth  me.     He  that  heareth  you  heareth  me. 

3.  That  the  means  provided  by  Christ  to  produce  the  unity 
of  faith,  was  submission  to  the  rulers  of  this  Catholic  church. 

4.  That  nothing  could  be  done  without  their  consent. 

5.  That  perfect  unity  must,  and  did  exist,  in  the  Catholic 
church. 

6.  That  in  this  church  salvation  was  to  be  found. 

7.  That  they  who  resisted  the  rulers  of  the  church,  were 
heretics,  and  unless  they  repented  and  returned  to  the  unity  of 
God,  they  could  not  be  saved. 


THE    INFALLIBILITY    OF   THE    CHUKCH.  189 

And  one  cannot  but  observe  the  strong  resemblance  between 
the  language  of  the  old  Martyr  and  that  of  St.  Paul,  in  his  first 
Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  chapter  first.  Ignatius  exhorts  his 
brethren  to  "be  perfectly  joined  together  in  the  same  mind 
and  in  the  same  judgment,"  that  they  "  all  speak  the  same  about 
the  same  thing,  and  that  being  subject  to  the  bishop  and  pres- 
byters, they  may  be  sanctified  in  all  things."  St.  Paul  uses  the 
same  language  in  part,  and  inculcates  the  same  subjection  to 
the  household  of  Stephanas  and  others. 

In  these  epistles  of  Ignatius,  there  is  to  be  found  nothing 
like  the  principle  of  private  interpretation  independent  of  the 
church.  The  duty  of  submission  is  as  clearly  and  forcibly  incul- 
cated, as  it  could  be  done.  The  principle  of  government  in  the 
church  is  distinctly  and  repeatedly  asserted,  in  very  strong  lan- 
guage, and  the  most  powerful  reasons  given  for  it,  because  these 
rulers  were  only  the  agents  of  Christ,  and  acting  for  Him,  and 
in  His  name. 

And  in  reference  to  the  succession  of  officers  in  the  church, 
St.  Clement,  bishop  of  Rome,  says : 

"  Preaching  through  countries  and  cities,  they  (apostles)  ap- 
pointed their  first  fruits — having  proved  them  by  the  Spirit — 
bishops  and  deacons  of  those  who  were  about  to  believe." 

"  So  also  our  apostles  knew,  through  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
that  contention  would  arise  on  account  of  the  episcopacy.  And 
for  this  cause,  having  a  perfect  foreknowledge,  they  appointed 
the  aforesaid,  (bishops  and  deacons,)  and  then  gave  direction  in 
what  manner,  when  they  should  die,  other  approved  men  should 
succeed  them  in  their  ministry." 

And  Ignatius  says : 

"  I  exhort  you,  that  ye  study  to  do  all  things  in  a  divine 
unanimity,  the  bishop  holding  presidency,  in  the  place  of  God ; 
and  the  presbyters  in  the  place  of  the  council  of  the  apostles  ; 
and  the  deacons  most  dear  to  me,  intrusted  with  the  service  of 
Jesus  Christ."  (Ep.  ad  Magnesianos.) 

And  the  holy  martyr  and  bishop  Polycarp,  the  disciple  of 
St.  John,  of  whom  St.  Irena3us  says  "  he  was  instructed  by 
apostles,  and  lived  in  familiar  friendship  with  many  who  had 
seen  the  Lord,"  says  : 

"  In  like  manner,   deacons  blameless  in  the  sight   of  His 


190  THE    INFALLIBILITY    OF   THE    CHURCH. 

righteousness,  as  the  ministers  of  God  in  Christ,  and  not  of  men 
*  *  *  *  Wherefore  it  is  necessary  that  ye  abstain  from  all 
these  things,  being  subject  to  the  presbyters  and  deacons  as  unto 
God  and  Christ."  (Ep.  ad  Philipp.) 

St.  Justin,  in  commenting  on  Psalm  xliv.  7,  says : 

"  And  these  words  also  proclaim  that  the  Word  of  God  (ad- 
dresses Himself)  to  those  that  believe  on  Him,- — as  being  one 
soul,  and  one  synagogue,  and  one  church, — as  to  a  daughter,  to 
the  church,  that  is,  which  is  derived  from,  and  partakes  of,  His 
name  ;  for  we  are  all  called  Christians." 

St.  IrenaBus,  the  disciple  of  St.  Polycarp,  the  disciple  of  St. 
John,  a-mong  others  gives  these  testimonies  : 

"  There  being  such  proofs  to  look  to,  we  ought  not  still  to 
look  amongst  others  for  truth,  which  it  is  easy  to  receive  from 
the  church,  seeing  that  the  apostles  most  fully  committed  unto 
this  church,  as  unto  a  rich  repository,  all  whatever  is  of  truth, 
that  every  one  that  willeth  may  draw  out  of  it  (the  church)  the 
drink  of  life.  For  this  is  the  gate  of  life ;  but  all  others  are 
thieves  and  robbers.  Therefore  we  ought  to  avoid  them,  but 
to  cling  with  the  utmost  care  to  whatever  is  of  the  church,  and 
to  holdfast  to  the  tradition  of  truth." 

"  An  ordinance  to  which  many  of  the  barbarous  nations  who 
believe  in  Christ  assent,  having  salvation  written,  without  paper 
and  ink,  by  the  Spirit,  in  their  hearts,  and  sedulously  guarding 
the  old  tradition." 

"For  before  Valentinus  there  were  no  Valentinians,  nor 
Marcionites  before  Marcion,  nor,  in  fact,  any  of  the  other  malig- 
nant sentiments  enumerated  above,  before  there  arose  inventors 
and  beginners  of  each  perverse  opinion."  (Adv.  Haeres.,  1.  Hi.,  c.  iv.) 

"  Wherefore  we  ought  to  obey  those  presbyters  who  are  in 
the  church,  those  who  have  a  succession  from  the  apostles,  as 
we  have  shown ;  who,  with  the  succession  of  the  episcopate, 
have  received,  according  to  the  good  will  of  the  Father,  the 
sure  gift  of  truth  ;  but  the  rest,  who  depart  from  the  principal 
succession,  and  assemble  in  any  place  whatever,  we  ought  to 
hold  suspected,  either  as  heretics,  and  of  an  evil  opinion,  or  as 
schismatics  and  proud,  and  as  men  pleasing  themselves ;  or, 
again,  as  hypocrites  doing  this  for  gain's  sake,  and  vain  glory." 
(Ibid.,  1.  iv.,  c.  xxvi.,  n.  2.) 


THE    INFALLIBILITY    OF   THE    CHURCH.  191 

"  And,  indeed,  the  preaching  (or,  public  teaching)  of  the 
church,  in  which  one  and  the  same  way  of  salvation  is  set  forth 
throughout  the  whole  world,  is  true  and  firm.  For  to  this 
(church)  has  been  intrusted  the  light  of  God,  and  on  this  ac- 
count is  the  wisdom  of  God,  through  which  He  saves  men,  pro- 
claimed in  the  gates ;  in  the  streets  she  acts  confidently." 
'Ibid.,  1.  v.,  c.  xx.,  n.  1.) 

"  Having,  as  I  have  said,  received  that  preaching  and  this 
faith ,  the  church,  though  spread  over  the  whole  world,  guards 
(it)  sedulously,  as  though  dwelling  in  one  house;  and  these 
truths  she  uniformly  holds,  as  having  but  one  soul,  and  one  and 
the  same  heart  /  and  these  she  proclaims  and  teaches,  and  hands 
down  uniformly,  as  though  she  had  but  one  mouth.  For  though 
throughout  the  world,  the  languages  are  various,  still  the  force 
of  the  tradition  is  one  and  the  same.  And  neither  do  the 
churches  founded  in  Germany,  nor  those  in  Spain,  in  Gaul,  in 
the  East,  in  Egypt,  in  Africa,  nor  in  the  regions  in  the  middle 
of  the  earth,  believe  or  deliver  a  different  faith  ;  but  as  God's 
handiwork,  the  sun,  is  one  and  the  same  throughout  the  uni- 
verse, so  the  preaching  of  the  truth  shines  everywhere,  and  en- 
lightens all  men  that  wish  to  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the 
truth.  Nor  does  he  who,  amongst  the  rulers  in  the  churches, 
is  more  powerful  in  word  deliver  a  different  doctrine  from  the 
above,  (for  no  one  is  above  his  teacher ;)  nor  does  he  who  is 
weak  in  speech  weaken  the  tradition.  For  the  faith  being  one 
and  the  same,  neither  he  who  has  ability  to  say  much  concern- 
ing it,  hath  any  thing  over,  nor  he  who  speaketh  little,  any 
lack." 

"  The  whole  church  has  one  and  the  same  faith  throughout 
the  whole  world,  as  we  have  explained  above.1"1  (Adv.  Hseres.,  1. 
i.,  c.  x.,  n.  1-3.) 

*  *  *  *  "  but  the  public  teaching  of  the  church  (is) 
everywhere  uniform,  and  equally  enduring,"  <fec.  (Ibid.,  1.  iii., 
c.  xxiv.,  n.  1.) 

"  But  He  will  also  judge  all  those  who  are  out  of  the  truth, 
that  is,  who  are  out  of  the  church.  But  He  will  be  judged  by 
none." 

"  Therefore,  in  every  church  there  is,  for  all  those  who  would 
fain  see  the  truth,  at  hand  to  look  unto,  the  tradition  of  the 


192  THE   INFALLIBILITY   OF   THE    CHURCH. 

apostles  made  manifest  throughout  the  whole  world ;  and  we 
have  it  in  our  power  to  enumerate  those  who  were,  by  the 
apostles,  instituted  bishops  in  the  churches,  and  the  successors 
of  those  bishops  down  to  ourselves  ;  none  of  whom  were  taught 
or  knew  any  thing  like  unto  the  wild  opinions  of  these  men. 
For  if  the  apostles  had  known  any  hidden  mysteries,  which  they 
apart,  and  privately  taught  the  perfect  only,  they  would  have 
delivered  them,  before  all  others,  to  whom  they  even  intrusted 
the  very  churches.  For  they 'sought  that  they  whom  they  left 
as  successors,  delivering  unto  them  their  own  post  of  govern- 
ment, should  be  especially  perfect  and  blameloss  in  all  things ; 
whose  upright  discharge  of  their  office  would  be  of  great  profit, 
as  their  fall  would  be  a  great  calamity." 

"  By  this  order  and  by  this  succession,  both  that  tradition 
which  is  in  the  church  from  the  apostles,  and  the  preaching  of 
the  truth,  have  come  down  to  us.  And  this  is  a  most  complete 
demonstration,  that  the  vivifying  faith  is  one  and  the  same, 
which,  from  the  apostles,  even  until  now,  has  been  persevered 
in,  and  transmitted  in  truthfulness."  (Adv.  Haeres.,  1.  iii.,  c. 
iii.,  n.  1—4.) 

"  For  everywhere  is  the  church  distinctly  visible,  and  every- 
where is  there  a  wine-press  dug ;  for  everywhere  are  those  who 
receive  the  Spirit."  (Ibid.,  1.  iv.,  c.  30.) 

"  If  a  man  believe  in  God  *  *  *  *  he  will  first  hold  to 
the  head.  (Coloss.  ii.  19.)  Then,  afterwards,  also  every  dis- 
course will  be  clear  to  him,  if  also  he  read  the  Scriptures  dili- 
gently with  those  who  are  presbyters  in  the  church,  with  whom 
is  the  apostolic  doctrine,  as  we  have  demonstrated."  (Adv. 
Haeres.,  1.  iv.,  c.  xxxii.,  n.  1,  2.) 

In  these  extracts,  St.  Irenaeus  states  substantially  that  "  the 
church  was  a  rich  repository,  into  which  the  apostles  committed" 
all  the  truth — that  all  may  learn  this  truth  of  this  church,  which 
is  the  "  gate  of  life" — that  the  barbarous  nations  sedulously 
guarded  the  old  tradition,  and  held  the  true  faith — that  the 
brethren  ought  to  obey  those  presbyters  who  have  a  succession 
from  the  apostles,  as  they  have  received  the  sure  gift  of  truth — 
that  the  public  teaching  of  the  church  is  the  same  throughout 
the  whole,  world — that  to  this  church  has  been  intrusted  the 
light  of  God,  and  on  this  account,  the  wisdom  of  God,  through 


THE   INFALLIBILITY    OF   THE   CHURCH.  193 

which  He  saves  men,  is  proclaimed — that  the  church  having  re- 
ceived the  faith,  though  she  was  spread  over  the  world,  guards 
it  sedulously,  as  if  dwelling  in  one  house,  as  having  but  one  soul 
— one  heart,  and  proclaims  and  teaches  as  though  she  had  but 
one  mouth — that  the  whole  church  held  one  and  the  same  faith 
throughout  all  the  world — that  her  teaching  was  everywhere 
uniform  and  equally  enduring — that  God  will  judge  those  who 
are  out  of  the  truth,  that  is,  those  who  are  out  of  the  church — 
that  the  tradition  was  handed  down  by  succession  from  the  apos- 
ties  in  truthfulness — that  the  apostles  delivered  to  those  they 
appointed  their  post  of  government — that  the  church  is  every- 
where distinctly  visible — and  that  if  a  man  held  to  the  head, 
Jesus  Christ,  and  then  read  the  Scriptures  diligently  with  the 
presbyters  in  the  church,  every  discourse  would  be  clear,  as  with 
these  presbyters  was  the  apostolic  doctrine.  In  short,  the  saint 
and  martyr  gives  a  most  beautiful  historical  description  of  an 
infallibly  governed,  and  for  that  reason,  a  universal  and  united 
church,  in  whose  communion  salvation  was  to  be  found. 

And  in  reference  to  the  universality  of  the  church  in  his  day, 
St.  Justin  says : 

"  But  there  is  no  race  of  men — whether  of  barbarians  or  of 
Greeks,  or,  in  fine,  bearing  any  other  name,  whether  because 
they  live  in  wagons,  or  are  without  a  fixed  habitation,  or  dwell 
in  tents,  leading  a  pastoral  life — among  whom  prayers  and  eu- 
charists  are  not  offered  to  the  Father  and  Maker  of  the  uni- 
verse, through  the  name  of  the  crucified  Jesus."  (Dial,  cum 
Tryphane,  n.  117.) 

And  St.  Hegisippus  says : 

"  But  in  each  succession  (of  bishops)  and  in  each  city,  it  is 
just  as  the  law  proclaims,  and  the  prophets  of  the  Lord." 

He  proceeds  to  name  several  heretics  and  their  sects,  as 
Simon,  Menander,  Marcion,  Valentinus  ;  and  observes  : 

"  Each  of  these  introduced  of  himself,  and  different  from  all 
the  rest,  his  private  opinion.  From  these  sprang  false  Christs, 
false  prophets,  false  apostles,  who  severed  the  unity  of  the  church 
with  counterfeit  teaching  against  God  and  His  Christ."  (Euse- 
bius  H.  E.,  1.  iv.,  c.  xxii.)  And  St.  Clement  of  Alexandria  gives 
this  testimony  among  others  : 

"  The  way  of  truth  is  one :  but  other  streams  run  into  it 
18 


194  THE    INFALLIBILITY    OF    THE    CHURCH. 

from  various  quarters,  as  into  a  perennial  river."    (Stromata, 
Li.) 

"  The  one  church  is  then  associated  to  the  nature  of  the  One ; 
which  church  these  men  violently  attempt  to  divide  into  many 
heresies.  In  substance,  in  sentiment,  in  origin,  in  excellence, 
we  say  the  ancient  and  Catholic  church  is  alone."  *  *  *  * 
"  But  the  excellence  of  the  church,  like  the  principle  of  every 
thing  concrete,  is  in  unity,  surpassing  all  other  things,  and  hav- 
ing nothing  similar  or  equal  to  itself."  (Ibid.,  1.  vi.) 

"  Christ  looks  upon  His  only  church."     (Id.,  1.  i.) 

"  And  she  remain's  rejoicing  unto  all  ages." 

"  It  is  called  the  kingdom  of  God,  the  heavenly  assembly  of 
love,  the  holy  church."  (Ib.,  1.  ii.) 

"  The  church  on  earth  is  the  image  of  the  church  in  heaven." 
(Ib.,l.iv.) 

"  An  excellent  thing  the  city  and  the  people     *     *     *     * 
governed  by  law,  as,  by  the  Word,  the  church  is  governed, 
which  is  a  city  on  earth,  impregnable,  and  free  from  oppression, 
the  divine  will  on  earth,  as  (it  is)  in  heaven."     (Strom.,  1.  iv.) 

Speaking  of  Marcion,  and  Prodicus,  and  other  heretics,  he 
says : 

"  But  it  would  have  been  well  for  them  if  they  had  been  able 
to  hear  the  things  which  had  been  previously  handed  down." 
*  *  *  *  «  por  j-oaj.  tney  made  their  human  assemblages 
later  than  the  Catholic  church,  there  needs  not  many  words  to 
show."  (Strom.,  1.  vii.) 

"  These  things  being  so,  it  is  manifest,  that  out  of  the 
primordial  and  most  true  church,  these  after-born  adulterate  her- 
esies have  been  formed,  by  innovation,  as  also  those  that,  later 
still,  have  come  after  them."  (Id.,  Tertullian.) 

"  The  apostles  having  obtained  the  promised  power  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  for  miracles  and  utterance,  first  having  throughout 
Judea  borne  witness  to  the  faith  in  Christ  Jesus,  and  established 
churches,  next  went  forth  into  the  world,  and  promulgated  the 
same  doctrine  of  the  same  faith  to  the  nations,  and  forthwith 
founded  churches  in  every  city,  from  which  (churches)  the  other 
churches  thenceforward  borrowed  the  tradition  of  the  faith,  and 
the  seeds  of  doctrine,  and  are  daily  borrowing  them  that  they 
may  become  churches :  and  for  this  cause  they  are  themselves 


•  THE    INFALLIBILITY    OF   THE    CHURCH.  195 

also  accounted  apostolical,  as  being  the  offspring  of  apostolical 
churches.  The  whole  kind  must  needs  be  classed  under  their 
original.  Wherefore  these  churches,  so  many  and  so  great,  are 
but  that  one  primitive  church  from  the  apostles,  whence  they  all 
sprang.  Thus  all  are  the  primitive,  and  all  apostolical,  whilst 
all  being  one,  prove  unity,"  &c.  (De  Prasscr.,  n.  20.) 

"  Now  what  the  apostles  preached,  that  is,  what  Christ  re- 
vealed unto  them,  I  will  here  also  rule,  must  be  proved  in  no 
other  way  than  by  these  same  churches  which  the  apostles  them- 
selves founded ;  themselves  by  preaching  to  them  as  well  viva 
voce,  as  men  say,  as  afterwards  by  epistles.  If  these  things  be 
so,  it  becomes  forthwith  manifest  that  all  doctrine  which  agrees 
with  the  apostolic  churches,  the  wombs  and  originals  of  the 
faith,  must  be  accounted  true,  as  without  doubt  containing  that 
which  the  churches  received  from  the  apostles,  the  apoetles  from 
Christ,  Christ  from  God  ;  but  that  every  doctrine  must  be 
judged  at  once  false,  which  savoreth  things  contrary  to  the  truth 
of  the  churches,  and  of  the  apostles,  and  of  Christ,  and  of  God." 
(Ibid.,  n.  21.) 

"  To  sum  up,  if  it  is  certain  that  that  is  truest  which  is  most 
ancient,  that  most  ancient  which  is  even  from  the  beginning, 
that  from  the  beginning  which  is  from  apostles ;  it  will  in 
like  manner  also  be  certain  that  that  has  been  handed  down  by 
the  apostles,  which  shall  have  been  held  sacred  by  the  churches 
of  the  apostles."  (Adv.  Marcion,  1.  iv.,  n.  5.) 

"For  although  Marcion  rejects  his  (John's)  Apocalypse, 
nevertheless,  the  succession  of  bishops,  counted  up  to  their  ori- 
gin, will  stand  by  John  as  the  author.  Thus  also  is  the  noble 
origin  of  the  other  churches  recognized."  (Ibid.) 

"  But  if  any  (heresies)  dare  to  place  themselves  in  the  midst 
of  the  apostolic  age,  that  they  may  therefore  seem  to  have  been 
handed  down  from  the  apostles,  because  they  existed  under  the 
apostles,  we  say :  let  them  then  make  known  the  originals  of 
their  churches,  let  them  unroll  their  line  of  bishops,  so  coming 
down  by  succession  from  the  beginning,  that  their  first  bishop 
had  for  his  author  and  predecessor  some  one  of  the  apostles,  or 
of  apostolic  men,  so  he  were  one  that  continued  steadfast  with 
the  apostles.  For  in  this  manner  do  the  apostolic  churches 
reckon  their  origin."  (De  Prescript.  Heret.) 


196  THE    INFALLIBILITY    OF    THE    CHURCH.  • 

To  answer  the  plain  and  simple  argument  of  Tertullian,  the 
separatists  in  his  day  took  the  ground  that  the  apostles  were  not 
fully  instructed  in  all  truth,  alleging  St.  Paul's  rebuke  of  St. 
Peter ;  and  that  the  churches  founded  by  them  were  not  relia- 
ble witnesses,  because  they  were  some  of  them  rebuked  by  the 
apostle  Paul,  as  the  Galatians  and  others.  To  this  ground  Ter 
tullian  replies,  among  other  things  : 

"  Well,  then :  be  it  that  all  have  erred ;  that  the  apostle  also 
was  deceived  in  the  testimony  which  he  gave  (in  favor  of  some) ; 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  had  regard  to  no  one  of  them  (the  church- 
es) so  as  to  guide  it  into  truth,  although  for  this  sent  by  Christ, 
for  this  asked  of  the  Father,  that  he  might  be  the  Teacher  of 
truth ;  that  he,  the  Steward  of  God,  the  Vicegerent  of  Christ, 
neglected  his  office,  suffering  the  churches  the  while  to  under- 
stand differently,  to  believe  differently,  that  which  he  himself 
preached  by  the  apostles — is  it  likely,  that  so  many  churches, 
and  so  great,  should  have  gone  astray  in  one  faith  f  Never  is 
there  one  result  among  many  chances  :  the  error  in  the  doctrine 
of  the  churches  must  needs  have  varied.  But  what  is  found 
(one  and  the  same)  amongst  so  many,  is  not  error,  but  tradi- 
tion. Let  any  one,  then,  dare  to  say  that  they  were  in  error 
who  delivered  it." 

Speaking  of  the  general  characteristics  of  heresy  and  here- 
tics, he  says : 

"  They  huddle  up  a  peace  also  with  all  everywhere.  For  it 
makes  no  matter  to  them,  although  they  hold  different  doc- 
trines, so  long  as  they  conspire  together  in  their  siege  against 
the  one  truth.  All  are  puffed  up ;  all  promise  knowledge.  The 
catechumens  are  perfect  before  they  are  taught." 

"  In  these  works  alone  do  they  act  humbly,  and  smoothly, 
and  submissively ;  but  they  know  no  reverence  even  towards 
their  own  chiefs.  And  this  is  why  there  are  commonly  no 
schisms  amongst  heretics;  because,  when  there  are  any,  they 
appear  not ;  for  schism  is  their  very  unity.  I  speak  falsely  if 
they  do  not  differ  among  themselves,  even  from  their  own  rules, 
seeing  that  each  forthwith  moulds,  according  to  his  own  pleas- 
ure, the  things  which  he  hath  received,  even  as  he,  who  deliv 
ered  them  to  him,  framed  them  according  to  his  own  pleasure. 
The  progress  of  the  matter  is  a  confession  of  its  nature,  and  of 


THE    INFALLIBILITY    OF    THE    CHURCH.  197 

the  manner  of  its  birth.  The  same  thing  was  allowed  to  the 
Valentinians  as  to  Valentinus,  the  same  to  the  Marcionites  as  to 
Marcion — to  change  the  faith  according  to  their  own  pleasure. 
Finally,  all  heresies  are  found,  when  thoroughly  examined,  dif- 
fering in  many  things  from  their  own  founders."  (De.  Prescript. 
Haer.  217.) 


CHAPTER   V. 

THE     PRIMACY     OF     ST.     PETER. 

§  1.  The  executive  power  must  exist  in  the  visible  Church. 

IF  we  concede  that  Christ  was  a  Divine  Lawgiver,  who  pre- 
scribed a  fundamental  unchangeable  law  for  the  practical  gov 
ernment  of  men  while  in  this  state  of  being,  we  are  then  forced, 
by  the  plainest  and  clearest  principles  whereon  all  governments 
intended  for  men  must  rest,  to  concede  that  His  subjects  were 
intended  to  be  governed  in  unity,  and  not  in  discord.  And  the 
moment  we  concede  the  character  of  Christ  as  the  author  of  a 
practical  system,  we  are  also  forced  to  concede  that  in  the  gov- 
ernment He  instituted,  there  must  exist  those  necessary  ele- 
ments, without  which  government  itself  cannot  exist. 

That  the  executive  power  must  exist  in  every  practical  gov- 
ernment, is  as  clear,  as  that  the  legislative  and  judicial  powers 
are  required.  We  can  as  readily  conceive  of  a  government 
without  the  legislative,  as  without  the  executive  and  judicial 
powers.  There  cannot  be  a  law  prescribed  without  legislation, 
nor  can  it  be  a  law  at  all  unless  intended  to  constitute  a  rule  for 
the  parties  governed ;  and  it  cannot  be  a  rule,  unless  intended 
to  be  practically  administered  ;  and  this  practical  administration 
cannot  be  attained,  unless  the  executive  and  judicial  powers 
both  exist  in  the  system.  Without  this  practical  application  of 
the  law,  the  system  would  be  clearly  idle,  and  unworthy  any 
just  legislator.  That  a  Divine  Lawgiver  should  organize  a 
visible  association  of  men,  and  prescribe  a  positive  code  for  its 
government,  and  yet  have  no  executive  and  judicial  powers  in 
this  great  institution  to  enforce  the  law,  would  be  plainly  tc 


THE  PRIMACY  OF  ST.  PMTKR.  199 

defeat  the  very  end  and  purpose  of  the  system.  And  with  all 
proper  deference  for  the  opinions  of  others,  I  am  constrained  to 
say,  that,  in  my  judgment,  if  there  be  any  position  in  reference 
to  which  human  reason,  fairly  exercised,  can  form  a  just  and 
decisive  conclusion,  this  is  one.  I  cannot  form  a  conception  of 
a  visible  association  of  men,  governed  by  a  positive  unchange« 
able  law,  without  the  existence  of  the  executive  and  judicial 
powers  placed  somewhere  in  the  institution.  Nor  can  I  con- 
ceive of  any  practical  and  efficient  system  of  government,  where- 
in the  executive  and  judicial  powers  are  not  coextensive  with 
the  actual  exercise  of  the  power  of  legislation.  In  other  words, 
where  the  executive  and  judicial  powers  do  not  have  jurisdic- 
tion to  enforce,  practically,  all  the  laws  intended  for  practical 
application ;  for  if  these  powers  exist  in  the  system  at  all,  then 
for  what  purpose  do  they  exist  but  to  enforce  all  those  portions 
of  the  law  intended  to  be  put  in  practical  operation? 

If  the  position  be  true,  that  the  executive  power  exists  in 
the  system  of  Christ,  that  power  must  have  been  placed  some- 
where, either  in  the  hands  of  an  individual  and  his  successors, 
or  in  the  hands  of  several.  The  Catholic  theory  holds  that  our 
Lord  conferred  this  power  upon  a  single  individual  and  his  suc- 
cessors. 

"  The  idea  of  his  supremacy,"  says  Cardinal  Wiseman,  "  in- 
volves two  distinct,  but  closely  allied,  prerogatives :  the  first  is, 
that  the  Holy  See  is  the  centre  of  unity  ;  the  second,  that  it  is 
the  fountain  of  authority.  By  the  first  is  signified  that  all  the 
faithful  must  be  in  communion  with  it,  through  their  respective 
pastors,  who  form  an  unbroken  chain  of  connection  from  the 
lowliest  member  of  the  flock,  to  him  who  has  been  constituted 
its  universal  shepherd.  To  violate  this  union  and  communion 
constitutes  the  grievous  crime  of  schism,  and  destroys  an  essen- 
tial constitutive  principle  of  Christ's  religion. 

"  We  likewise  hold  the  Pope  to  be  the  source  ot  authority ; 
as  all  the  subordinate  rulers  of  the  Church  are  subject  to  him, 
and  receive  directly,  or  indirectly,  their  jurisdiction  from  and 
by  him.  Thus  the  executive  power  is  vested  in  his  hands  for  all 
spiritual  purposes  within  her ;  to  him  is  given  the  charge  of 
confirming  his  brethren  in  the  faith ;  his  office  is  to  watch  over 
the  correction  of  abuses,  and  the  maintenance  of  discipline 


2UO  THE  PRIMACY  OF  ST.  PETER. 

throughout  the  Church  ;  in  case  of  error  springing  up  in  any 
part,  he  must  make  the  necessary  investigations  to  discover  it 
find  condemn  it ;  and  either  bring  the  refractory  to  submission, 
or  separate  them,  as  withered  branches,  from  the  vine.  In 
cases  of  great  and  influential  disorder  in  faith  or  practice,  he 
convenes  a  general  council  of  the  pastors  of  the  Church ;  pre- 
sides over  it  in  person,  or  by  his  legates ;  and  sanctions,  by  his 
approbation,  its  canons  or  decrees.  *  *  * 

"  The  supremacy  which  I  have  described  is  of  a  character 
purely  spiritual,  and  has  no  connection  with  the  possession  of 
any  temporal  jurisdiction.  The  sovereignty  of  the  Pope  over 
his  own  dominions  is  no  essential  portion  of  his  dignity ;  his 
supremacy  was  not  the  less  before  it  was  acquired :  and  should 
the  unsearchable  decrees  of  Providence,  in  the  lapse  of  ages, 
deprive  the  Holy  See  of  its  temporal  sovereignty,  as  happened 
to  the  seventh  Pius,  through  the  usurpation  of  a  conqueror,  its 
dominion  over  the  Church,  and  over  the  consciences  of  the  faith- 
ful, would  not  be  thereby  impaired."  (Moorfield  Lectures, 
p.  226.) 

§  2.  The  Scriptural  proofs  of  the  primacy  of  St.  Peter, 
examined. 

The  first  passage  which  bears  upon  this  question,  is  that 
taken  from  the  first  chapter  of  St.  John's  Gospel,  verse  42 : 
"  And  when  Jesus  beheld  him  he  said,  thou  art  Simon  the  son 
of  Jona ;  thou  shalt  be  called  Cephas,  which  is  by  interpreta- 
tion, A  stone."  According  to  the  Douay  Bible,  "  thou  shalt 
be  called  Cephas,  which  is  interpreted  Peter." 

In  his  work  upon  the  Primacy  of  St.  Peter,  Bishop  Kenrick 
says  that  Cephas  is  a  Syro-Chaldaic  term,  which  signifies  rock. 
(P.  24.) 

It  had  been  a  practice  with  God,  on  particular  occasions,  to 
change  the  names  of  his  servants  when  bestowing  upon  them 
some  signal  preeminence.  For  example,  when  God  made  a 
great  covenant  with  Abram,  He  changed  his  name  to  Abraham, 
and  that  of  his  wile  from  Sarai  to  Sarah.  So,  when  Jacob 
wrestled  with  the  angel  and  refused  to  let  him  go  without  a 
blessing,  the  angel  blessed  him  and  said:  "  Thy  name  shall  be 
called  no  more  Jacob,  but  Israel ;  for  as  a  prince  hast  thou 


THE  PRIMACY  OF  ST.  PETER.  201 

power  with  God  and  with  men,  and  hast  prevailed."  (Gen. 
xvii.  5,  15  ;  xxxiii.  28,  29.)  The  moment  Christ  saw  Simon  he 
said,  "  thou  shalt  be  called  Cephas." 

It  is  true,  that  our  Lord  surnamed  James  and  John  "  Boan- 
erges." (Mark  iii.  17.)  But  it  is  equally  true,  that  the  history 
of  the  labors  of  these  apostles,  is  but  sparingly  given  in  the  New 
Testament.  If  we  had  this  history  in  full,  we  should  no  doubt 
be  able  to  understand  the  reason  for  this  change  of  name.  But 
"because  the  reason  for  the  surname  of  these  apostles  does  not 
appear  upon  the  face  of  the  record,  it  will  not  justify  us  in  re- 
jecting the  explanation  therein  given  for  the  surname  of  Peter. 
Christ  was  no  idle  lawgiver.  He  always  had  in  His  eye,  His 
Father's  business,  and  what  He  did,  ever  tended  to  that  end. 
He  did  not  give  a  surname  to  all  the  apostles.  His  practice  was 
not  general,  but  special ;  and  special  reasons  must  have  existed 
to  justify  special  acts.  In  the  nature  of  things  there  must  exist 
some  good  reason  for  a  change  of  name.  In  civil  governments 
a  man  has  no  right  to  change  his  name  without  the  consent  of 
-he  government.  It  would  seem  clear  that  Christ  had  some 
important  object  in  view,  when  He  gave  Peter  his  name,  which 
is  not  mentioned  at  the  time  it  was  given.  But  it  does  not 
matter  when  or  where  the  reason  for  the  change  of  name  is 
given,  so  it  is  given. 

In  the  sixteenth  chapter  of  St.  Matthew's  Gospel  we  have 
the  explanation : 

"  He  saith  unto  them,  But  whom  say  ye  that  I  am  ?  And 
Simon  Peter  answered  and  said,  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son 
of  the  living  God.  And  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  him, 
Blessed  art  thou,  Simon  Bar-jona:  for  flesh  and  blood  hath  not 
revealed  it  unto  thee,  but  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven.  And 
I  say  also  unto  thee,  That  thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I 
will  build  my  church ;  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail 
against  it.  And  I  will  give  unto  thee  the  keys  of  the  kingdom 
of  heaven :  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  bind  on  earth  shall  be 
bound  in  heaven :  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  loose  on  earth 
shall  be  loosed  in  heaven."* 


*  It  will  be  observed  that  both  the  powers  to  bind  and  loose  were  conferred  on 
Peter.     The  one  power  without  the  other,  would  have  been  about  as  idle  as  the 

19 


202  THE  PRIMACY  OF  ST.  PETER. 

It  must  be  conceded  that  this  is  one  of  the  most  emphatic 
passages  to  be  found  in  the  four  Gospels,  and  must  teem  with 
meaning  of  the  greatest  importance. 

The  first  question  that  gives  rise  to  a  difference  of  opinion, 
is  whether  Peter  was  the  rock  upon  which  the  Church  was  to 
be  founded.  Many  Protestant  authors  concede  that  he  was, 
while  others  contend  that  the  truth  revealed  to  Peter  was  allud- 
ed to  by  our  Lord  as  "  this  rock."  All  Catholic  writers,  whose 
works  I  have  read,  insist  that  the  clear  meaning  of  the  passage 
is,  as  if  written,  "  Thou  art  a  rock,  and  upon  this  rock  I  will 
build  my  church."  Mr.  Campbell,  in  his  debate  with  Bishop 
Purcell,  page  84,  gives  this  reading :  "  Thou  art  stone,  and  upon 
this  rock  (on  this  great  truth  which  flesh  and  blood  has  not  re- 
vealed to  thee)  I  will  build  my  church."* 

power  to  remit,  without  the  power  to  retain,  sins.  And  the  power  to  open,  with- 
out the  power  to  shut,  the  gates  of  the  Kingdom,  would  have  been  equally  idle. 
If  the  power  to  loose,  was  the  power  to  open  the  gates  of  the  Kingdom ;  then, 
the  corresponding  power  to  bind,  must  unquestionably  be  the  power  to  shut.  It 
cannot  be  said  that  the  power  to  bind  was  the  power  to  open.  According  to  the 
half  complete  theory  of  Mr.  Campbell  and  others,  (Deb.  C.  &  P.,  85,)  the  gates 
were  only  to  be  opened  by  Peter  once  to  Jews  and  Gentiles — were  always  after 
that  to  remain  open — and  there  is  no  more  use  for  the  keys.  But  when  did  Pe- 
ter ever  shut  the  gates  ?  At  the  time  the  keys  were  given  to  him,  the  gates 
were  closed  ;  and  if,  after  being  once  opened,  they  were  always  to  remain  open, 
the  power  to  bind  was  wholly  useless ;  and  our  Lord  is  accused,  by  this  theory, 
of  doing  a  very  senseless  thing,  in  conferring  the  power  to  bind  on  Peter,  when 
it  was  never  to  be  used. 

There  are  four  facts  that  clearly  distinguish  Peter's  case  from  that  of  the 
other  apostles : 

1.  He  was  the  only  rock — foundation. 

2.  The  power  was  separately  delegated  to  him. 

3.  He  was  the  only  one  to  whom  the  whole  flock  was  committed. 

4.  He  was  the  only  one  to  whom  the  keys — that  symbol  of  supreme  com- 
mand— were  given. 

These  facts  are  most  important,  and  full  of  meaning.  They  are  of  a  conclu- 
sive character,  when  legitimately  considered  and  applied. 

*  It  is  true,  that  our  Lord,  in  the  first  sentence  of  His  reply  to  Peter,  alludes 
to  the  truth  confessed  by  the  apostle  :  but  He  does  not  there  designate  that  truth 
as  a  rock,  and  if  He  did  not  call  Peter  a  rock,  how  could  He  afterwards,  with 
any  propriety,  say  this  rock  ?  Had  our  Lord  intended  to  make  the  truth  con- 
fessed, the  rock  upon  which  the  Church  should  be  built,  He  would  have  natu- 
rally expressed  Himself  substantially  in  this  form :  "  Blessed  art  thou,  Simon 


THE  PRIMACY  OF  ST.  PETER.  203 

Of  the  merits  of  the  different  translations  I  am  not  compe- 
tent to  speak.  But  there  are  circumstances  which  seem  clearly 
to  refute  the  interpretation  of  Mr.  Campbell. 

Our  Lord  had  previously  given  Simon  the  surname  of  Peter, 
without  giving  him  any  reason  for  it ;  and  now,  in  the  com- 
mencement of  His  reply,  He  simply  calls  him  Simon  Bar-jona, 
and  then  gives  him  the  reason  why  he  is  blessed,  because  the 
Father  had  revealed  to  him  this  great  truth.  Then  following 
the  blessing,  and  the  reason  given  for  it,  our  Lord  uses  that 
most  emphatic  affirmation :  "  And  I  say  also  unto  thee,  That 
thou  art  Peter."  When  our  Lord  first  called  him  Cephas,  His 
language  was  not  so  emphatic.  It  was  simply,  "  Thou  shalt  be 
called  Cephas." 

Now  for  what  purpose,  and  for  what  intent,  did  our  Lord 
use  this  emphatic  language  ?  The  phrase  is  too  emphatic  to  be 
idle  and  meaningless.  Besides,  our  Lord  never  did  an  idle  thing. 
He  must  have  had  some  end  to  signify.  What  was  it  ?  I  could 
never  find  a  Protestant  writer  who  could  give  any  plausible  rea- 
son for  the  use  of  that  emphatic  statement,  "  That  thou  art 
Peter,"  and  yet  deny  that  he  was  the  rock.*  What  conceivable 
purpose  could  Christ  have  had  in  view,  but  to  make  that  state- 
ment the  basis  of  that  which  immediately  followed — "  and 
upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my  church  ?  " 

Bar-jona :  for  flesh  and  blood  hath  not  revealed  it  unto  thee,  but  my  Father 
which  is  in  heaven ;  and  upon  this  truth  I  will  build  my  church,  and  the  gates 
of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it ;  "  and  would  have  put  the  promise  to  build, 
in  close  connection  with  the  foundation,  in  the  place  where  the  foundation  is 
first  mentioned,  and  not  in  a  distinct  sentence  Why  our  Lord  should  have  given 
Peter  that  most  emphatic  confirmation  of  his  name  immediately  before  His  prom- 
ise to  build  the  Church,  and  closely  connect  the  promise  and  the  confirmation 
together  in  the  same  sentence,  when  they  had  no  relation  to  each  other,  it  is 
most  difficult  to  conceive.  According  to  the  theory  of  those  who  deny  that  Pe- 
ter was  the  rock,  the  promise  to  build  is  closely  connected  with  what  is  not  the 
foundation,  and  disconnected  from  that  which  is ;  thus  reversing  all  the  rules  of 
correct  usage. 

*  Mr.  Campbell  does  indeed  intimate  that  the  name  Peter  "  was  most  prob- 
ably occasioned  by  the  fact  that  Daniel  spoke  of  the  kingdom  of  the  Messiah 
under  the  figure  of  a  stone  cut  out  of  a  mountain."  (Debate  C.  &  P.,  112.) 
But  it  is  very  difficult  to  understand  how  Christ  could  have  intended  to  say  to 
Peter,  in  substance,  "  Thou  art  my  Kingdom." 


204  THE  PRIMACY  OF  ST.  PETER. 

The  true  and  simple  view  of  this  passage  would  seem  to  be 
this :  Our  Lord,  at  the  beginning,  gave  Simon  his  surname, 
without  stating  to  him  any  reason  for  the  act.  God,  the  Father, 
afterwards  reveals  to  Peter  the  Divinity  of  Christ.  Our  Lord 
called  out  the  confession  of  Peter,  not  that  he  needed  to  be  in- 
formed of  the  facts  inquired  after,  but  for  the  purpose  of  afford- 
ing Him  a  fitting  opportunity  of  constituting  Peter  the  founda- 
tion of  the  Church.  Peter  had  been  favored  by  a  special  reve- 
lation, and  our  Lord  knew  this  fact.  When  Peter  had  confessed, 
our  Lord  reaffirmed  the  name  Peter,  for  the  purpose  of  letting 
him  know  that  he  was  not  only  a  rock,  but  the  rock  upon  which 
the  Church  should  be  built,  and  then  He  states  the  character  of 
the  Church. 

This  view  gives  force  and  effect  to  every  part  of  the  reply 
of  our  Lord  to  Peter,  and  does  not  leave  that  emphatic  affirma- 
tion "  thou  art  Peter,"  to  stand  in  such  close  connection  with 
"  and  upon  this  rock,"  &c.,  and  yet  be  idle  and  meaningless. 
The  very  reason  why  our  Lord  at  first  only  called  him  Simon, 
was  to  reserve  the  affirmation  that  he  was  Peter,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  putting  it  in  close  and  immediate  connection  with  "this 
rock." 

The  opposite  construction  cannot  be  true,  because  it  breaks 
the  chain  of  unity  running  through  the  whole  passage.  Every 
thing  in  it  has  a  connection  with  Peter.  He  is  first  pro- 
nounced blessed — he  is  then  told  that  he  is  Peter,  and  that  the 
Church  should  be  built  upon  him,  and  then  he  is  promised  the 
keys.  That  the  promise  to  build  the  Church  was  connected 
with  Peter,  is  further  shown  from  that  which  follows.  Why 
should  our  Lord  continue  his  promises  in  this  form,  "And  Twill 
give  unto  thee  the  keys,"  &c.,  unless  both  promises  related  to 
Peter  f  There  are  three  sentences  contained  in  our  Lord's  re- 
ply to  Peter,  and  they  all  relate  to  him  and  matters  connected 
with  him.  The  first  and  third  confessedly  relate  to  Peter.  Why 
does  not  that  in  the  middle  have  relation  also  to  Peter  ?  If  we 
concede  that  the  Church  was  founded  on  Peter,  we  can  readily 
see  why  Christ  defined  the  character  of  the  structure  to  be  built 
on  Peter.  The  character  of  the  Church  necessarily  qualified  the 
prerogative  of  the  apostle.  The  promise  to  build  would  not  be 
definite,  unless  the  character  of  the  thing  to  be  built  was  also 


THE  PRIMACY  OF  ST.  PETER.  205 

given.  So,  when  our  Lord  promised  the  keys,  He  at  once  states 
what  they  will  enable  Peter  to  do. 

It  was  objected  by  Mr.  Campbell,  as  well  as  others,  that 
Peter  could  not  be  the  rock,  because  Christ  said  thou  in  the  sec- 
ond, and  this  in  the  third  person.  "  To  have  addressed  Peter 
in  the  second  and  third  persons  as  both  present  and  absent,  in 
the  same  breath,  is  wholly  unprecedented."  (Debate  C.  &  P., 
94.) 

But  with  all  due  deference  to  the  opinion  of  the  learned  de- 
bater, his  objection  seems  more  plausible  than  sound.  Our  Lord 
first  tells  Peter  that  he  is  a  rock,  and  after  that,  so  long  as  He 
speaks  of  Peter  under  that  symbol,  He  very  properly  uses  the 
third  person.  But  when  He  comes  to  speak  of  Peter,  not  as 
the  rock,  but  as  the  earthly  head  of  the  Church,  holding  the 
keys,  then  our  Lord  uses  the  second  person.  I  cannot  see  any 
violation  of  correct  usage  in  this ;  but  the  use  of  the  third  per- 
son in  one  case,  and  of  the  second  in  the  other,  was  in  strict  ac- 
cordance with  the  figure  used  by  Christ.  Having  first  declared 
Peter  a  rock,  so  long  as  He  kept  that  symbol  in  His  eye,  He 
would  regard  him  in  that  light,  and  speak  of  him  accordingly. 
The  interpreter  of  a  dream  or  parable  first  tells  you  that  he  will 
give  the  interpretation,  and  after  that  he  proceeds  to  use  lan- 
guage in  a  positive  form — "  the  reapers  are  the  angels,"  "  the 
harvest  is  the  end  of  the  world." 

"  Bloomfield,"  says  Bishop  Kenrick,  "a  recent  Anglican  com- 
mentator, observes  that  every  modern  expositor  of  note  has 
abandoned  the  distinction  between  Peter  and  rock  as  untenable. 
Bishop  Marsh,  quoted  by  him,  says  that  '  it  would  be  a  desper- 
ate undertaking  to  prove  that  Christ  meant  any  other  person 
than  Peter.'  Rosenmuller,  the  German  rationalist,  coincides  in 
this  critical  judgment :  'The  rock/  says  he,  '  is  neither  the  con- 
fession of  Peter,  nor  of  Christ  pointing  out  Himself  by  His  finger, 
or  by  a  shake  of  the  head,  (which  interpretations  the  context 
does  not  admit,)  but  Peter  himself."  (The  Primacy,  29.) 

The  learned  author  says  on  the  next  page  : 

"  In  '  Gerhard's  Institutes  of  Biblical  Criticism '  is  contained 
tne  folio  wing  just  observation — Canon  511  :  'The  most  obvious 
and  natural  sense  is  to  be  set  aside  only  when  it  is  absolutely 
contradictory  to  something  plainly  taught  in  Scripture.'  He 


206  THE  PRIMACY  OF  ST.  PETER. 

then  remarks,  that  'the  opposite  way  has  been  taken  by  all 
sects;'  and,  quoting  the  18th  verse  of  the  16th  chapter  of  St. 
Matthew,  observes  :  '  Building  on  Peter  is  explained,  by  some, 
as  contrary  to  the  faith  that  Christ  is  the  only  foundation,  (1 
Cor.  iii.  2,)  and  as  favoring  the  succession  of  Peter  and  his  suc- 
cessors; but  the  connection  shows  that  PETER  IS  HERE 
PLAINLY  MEANT.'  Such  is  the  language  of  this  text-book 
of  so  many  Protestant  colleges  and  theological  institutions, 
both  in  this  country  and  in  England." 

Mr.  Thompson  of  Glasgow,  in  his  Monatessaron.  concedes 
that  "  Peter  was  the  rock  on  which  Christ  said  His  Church 
should  be  built."  The  same  author  states  that  "  Protestants 
have  betrayed  unnecessary  fears,  and  have,  therefore,  used  all 
the  HARDIHOOD  OF  LAWLESS  CRITICISM  in  their  at- 
tempts to  reason  away  the  Catholic  interpretation."  (Cited  in 
The  Primacy,  31.) 

It  has  been  often  objected,  as  it  was  by  Mr.  Campbell,  (De- 
bate C.  &  P.,  95,)  that  Peter  could  not  be  the  rock  upon  which 
the  Church  was  built,  because  this  would  be  a  contradiction  of 
other  portions  of  Scripture.  In  the  third  chapter  of  first  Co- 
rinthians it  is  said  :  "  For  other  foundation  can  no  man  lay  than 
that  is  laid,  which  is  Jesus  Christ."  And  in  the  second  chapter 
of  Ephesians  the  apostle  says,  alluding  to  the  faithful :  "And  are 
built  upon  the  foundation  of  the  apostles  and  prophets,  Jesus 
Christ  himself  being  the  chief  corner-stone." 

The  term  foundation  has  several  meanings,  one  of  which  is 
"  the  basis  of  an  edifice ;  that  part  of  a  building  which  lies  upon 
the  ground,  usually  a  wall  of  stone  which  supports  the  edifice." 
(Webster.) 

It  is  evident  that  the  apostle  used  the  word  with  reference 
to  this  sense,  as  he  speaks  of  foundations  as  having  been  laid. 
And  were  we  to  adopt  the  principles  of 'criticism  urged  by  Mr. 
Campbell,  we  should  make  the  apostle. contradict  himself;  be- 
cause, in  the  first  extract  the  apostle  speaks  of  Christ  as  the 
foundation,  and  does  not  mention  that  apostles  and  prophets 
composed  it  in  part,  as  he  does  in  the  second.  I  am  not  aware 
of  any  text  in  which  our  Lord  was  ever  spoken  of  as  constituting 
the  foundation,  in  whole  or  in  part,  that  does  not  speak  with 
reference  to  a  foundation  laid,  not  selected. 


THE  PRIMACY  OF  ST.  PETER.  207 

The  term  has  another,  and  a  wider  signification,  which  is 
"  the  basis  or  groundwork  of  any  thing ;  that  on  which  any 
thing  stands  and  by  which  it  is  supported."  (Webster.)  A  rock 
is  "  a  large  mass  of  stony  matter,  either  bedded  in  the  earth,  or 
resting  upon  its  surface."  (Webster.)  A  rock,  upon  which  a 
building  is  based,  is  "  bedded  in  the  earth."  It  was  with  refer- 
ence to  this  sense,  that  Peter  was  called  the  rock.  Oui  Lord 
when  he  spoke  of  building  His  Church  upon  a  rock,  used  the 
word  rock  in  the  same  sense  He  did  when  speaking  of  the 
wise  man,  whose  house  "  fell  not :  for  it  was  founded  on  a  • 
rock."  That  must  be  a  foundation,  upon  which  an  edifice  is 
founded. 

The  different  figures  used  in  different  portions  of  Scripture, 
are  all  perfectly  consistent  with  the  Catholic  view,  and  with 
each  other.  The  same  thing  may  be  a  fit  symbol  to  illustrate 
different  parts  of  the  same  system,  when  contemplated  from 
different  points  of  view.  Thus  when  St.  Paul  calls  Christ  the 
spiritual  rock,  (1  Cor.  x.  1-4,)  he  speaks  of  Him  under  the  sym- 
bol of  a  rock  from  which  flowed  the  water  that  saved  the 
perishing  Israelites  in  the  desert.  The  rock  of  Horeb  was  in 
the  apostle's  eye  ;  and  the  apostle  did  not  intend,  in  this  passage, 
to  compare  Christ  to  a  foundation ;  but  that  Christ  was  the 
rock  from  which  the  waters  of  salvation  flowed.  So,  when  God, 
the  Father,  speaks  Himself,  as  the  builder,  He  says  :  "  Behold, 
I  will  lay  in  Zion  for  a  foundation  stone,  a  tried  stone,  a  precious 
stone,  a  sure  foundation.'*  The  foundation  here  alluded  to  was 
Christ.  So,  when  our  Lord  spake  as  a  builder,  He  said,  "  thou 
art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my  church."  So,  when 
the  everlasting  firmness  of  Christ  is  represented,  He  is  called 
the  rock  of  ages. 

§  3.  The  Scriptural  proofs  further  considered. 

If  we  concede  that  Peter  was  the  rock,  then  we  concede  that 
he  was  superior  to  tne  other  apostles,  who.  were  not  the  rock, 
but  only  a  part  of  the  foundation  as  laid  by  Christ.  In  what 
then  did  this  superiority  consist  ?  The  Catholic  theory  holds 
that  superior  official  power  was  conferred  on  this  great  apostle. 
This  is  denied  by  Protestants ;  and  the  most  plausible  ground 
that  can  be  taken  (after  conceding  that  Peter  was  the  rock)  to 


208  THE  PRIMACY  OF  ST.  PETEK. 

defeat  the  Catholic  construction,  is  that  the  promise  to  build 
the  church  on  Peter,  was  fulfilled  by  his  being  the  first  sent  to 
convert  both  Jews  and  Gentiles,  so  that  in  some  sense,  the 
Church  might  be  said  to  rise  from  him. 

But  this  explanation  would  seem  to  be  entirely  too  narrow, 
and  in  conflict  with  the  plain  and  obvious  figure  used  by  Christ. 
It  would  seem  to  be  about  as  erroneously  restrictive,  as  that 
narrow  construction  which  sought  to  confine  salvation  alone  to 
the  Jews,  when  the  wide  commission  was,  "  Go  teach  all  na- 
tions " — "  Preach  the  Gospel  to  every  creature." 

The  simple  fact  that  Peter  stood  up  with  the  eleven  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost,  and  was  the  only  one  who  spoke  on  that  day, 
and  that  he  afterwards  was  the  first  to  receive  a  Gentile  into 
the  Church,  does  not  show  that  he  possessed  any  more  official 
power  than  others.  The  first  President  of  the  United  States 
had  no  more  official  power  than  the  second.  How  then  could 
the  first  President,  as  such,  be  properly  called  the  rock  upon 
which  the  political  fabric  rests  ?  According  to  the  Protestant 
view,  Peter  was  only  the  first  to  exercise  a  power  given  alike 
to  all  the  apostles.  How  then  can  it  be  said  with  any  propriety 
that  he  was  the  rock  upon  which  the  Church  stood,  simply  be- 
cause he  was  one  of  eleven  equals,  who  first  exercised  a  power 
belonging  to  all  ?  This  was  certainly  a  very  meagre  superi- 
ority ;  and  would  not  seem  to  be  in  keeping  with  the  magnifi- 
cent promise  of  Christ. 

The  rock  upon  which  an  edifice  is  built,  is  contemplated  as 
continuing  in  the  same  permanent  state  it  was  in,  at  the  precise 
time  when  the  building  was  erected..  If  we  say  that  our  Lord 
first  created  the  office  of  Supreme  Head  of  the  Church  on  earth, 
as  He  did  the  office  of  teacher  in  the  commission,  and  afterwards 
addressed  Peter  in  his  official  capacity,  then  we  can  see  how 
Peter  could  be  appropriately  called  the  rock  upon  which  the 
Church  was  built.  The  power  and  effect  of  the  office  would  al- 
ways be  the  same  as  at  the  first,  and  the  Church  might  well  rest 
upon  it.  The  Church  was  regarded  by  Christ  as  a  permanent 
structure,  and  the  rock  or  foundation  upon  which  it  is  built, 
must  have  been  viewed  by  Him  as  equally  continuing.  The 
permanency  of  one  must  have  been  commensurate  with  that  of 
the  other. 


THE  PRIMACY  OF  ST.  PETER.  209 

That  this  is  the  correct  view  would  seem  to  be  clear  from 
the  fact,  that  the  stability  of  the  Church  is  but  the  consequertce, 
of  this  foundation.  When  our  Lord  said  the  foolish  man  built 
his  house  upon  the  sand  and  it  fell,  we  must  conclude  that  it 
fell  because  of  the  insecurity  of  the  foundation.  This  conclusion 
is  shown  to  be  correct  from  the  fact,  that  when  our  Lord  spoke 
of  the  wise  man  who  built  his  house  upon  a  rock,  He  said  "  it 
fell  not :  for  it  was  founded  upon  a  rock."  (Matt.  vii.  25.) 
Here  the  cause  of  the  stability  of  the  house  was  its  rock  foun- 
dation. So,  when  Christ  says,  "  and  on  this  rock  I  will  build 
my  church,  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it," 
the  relation  of  the  structure  to  the  foundation  is  so  close,  that 
we  must  say  the  stability  of  the  building  is  the  consequence  of 
the  stability  of  the  foundation.  Christ  made  Peter  the  rock, 
and  the  stability  of  the  rock  came  from  Christ,  its  Creator. 

But  how  the  mere  personal  privilege  of  being  the  first  to  ex- 
ercise an  official  power,  shared  in  common  with  other  then  ex- 
isting equals,  could  give  this  permanent  stability  to  the  Church, 
it  is  difficult  to  see.  The  cause  is  wholly  inadequate  to  produce 
the  effect.  There  is  no  due  proportion  between  them. 

Our  Lord  gave  to  Peter  the  keys  of  the  kingdom,  and  the 
consequence  of  this  possession  of  the  keys  of  the  entire  kingdom 
was  the  supreme  power  to  bind  and  loose.  In  other  words,  the 
power  to  bind  and  loose  was  but  a  consequence  flowing  from  the 
keys  of  the  entire  kingdom,  and  was  a  power  supreme  over  all. 
Observe  the  clear  and  explicit  language  of  our  Lord :  "  And  I 
will  give  unto  thee  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven ;  and 
whatsoever  thou  shalt  bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in  heaven : 
and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  loose  on  earth,  shall  be  loosed  in 
heaven." 

Mr.  Campbell  and  others  have  insisted  that  the  keys  were 
only  given  to  Peter  to  enable  him,  once  for  all,  to  open  the 
gates  of  the  Church  to  Jews  and  Gentiles. 

But  with  all  due  deference,  it  seems  to  me  that  this  explana- 
tion is  too  narrow  and  diminutive.  It  is  as  objectionable  as  the 
one  regarding  the  effect  of  Peter's  being  the  foundation  whereon 
the  Church  is  built. 

If  I  am  correct  in  holding  that  the  power  to  bind  and  loose 
was  but  a  result  flowing  from  the  possession  of  the  keys,  then 


210  THE  PRIMACY  OP  ST.  PETER. 

this  construction  must  be  erroneous;  for  the  reason,  that  the 
power  was  not  only  to  loose  but  also  to  bind — to  shut,  as  well 
as  to  open. 

But  I  have  never  been  able  to  find  any  instance  in  which  so 
small  a  consequence  could  be  given  to  such  a  symbol.  The  de- 
livery  of  keys  has  always  been  a  symbol  of  supreme  command. 
(See  Rev.  iii.  7.)  In  the  22d  chapter  of  Isaiah,  God,  speaking 
of  His  Son,  says  :  "And  I  will  commit  my  government  into  His 
hands  *  *  and  the  key  of  the  house  of  David  will  I  lay  upon 
his  shoulder :  so  he  shall  open,  and  none  shall  shut ;  and  he 
shall  shut,  and  none  shall  open."  So,  in  the  first  chapter  of 
Revelations,  the  keys  mentioned  in  verse  18,  were  symbols  of 
supreme  command.  So,  at  law,  where  the  delivery  of  personal 
property  is  necessary  to  pass  the  title,  the  delivery  of  the  key 
of  the  warehouse  in  which  the  goods  are  stored,  is  a  symbolical 
delivery  which  is  regarded  as  equivalent  to  an  actual  delivery, 
and  passes  the  command  of  the  property  to  the  purchaser/' 

Our  Lord  used  the  symbol  of  the  keys,  in  the  same  sense  in 
which  His  Father  used  it,  when  speaking  of  Him  as  the  future 
Messiah.  The  Father  committed  the  government  to  His  Son 
by  delivery  of  the  keys  of  the  house  of  David  ;  i.  e.,  the  Church  : 
and  the  Son  committed  the  same  to  His  servant,  by  delivery  of 
the  same  symbol.  As  the  Father  constituted  Christ  His  agent, 
so  Christ  constituted  Peter  His  agent.  God,  the  Father,  con- 
stitutes the  original  source  of  authority,  and  governs  the  king- 
dom through  His  Son,  Jesus  Christ.  All  power  in  heaven  and 
earth  was  given  unto  our  Lord,  who,  in  turn,  committed  the 

*  So  far  as  I  am  aware,  this  is  so  in  the  usage  of  all  nations.  In  the  very 
nature  of  the  symbol,  it  can  mean  nothing  else.  The  delivery  of  the  keys  of  a 
fortress  or  walled  city  to  a  conqueror  is  a  surrender  of  the  same  into  his  posses- 
sion. This  very  act  yields  up  the  command  of  the  place  by  one  party,  and 
passes  it  to  the  other.  When,  therefore,  our  Lord  gave  Peter  the  keys  of  His 
kingdom,  what  else  could  He  mean,  but  to  give  him,  to  whom  He  committed 
the  keys,  the  supreme  command?  And  that  our  Lord  created  an  office  by  this 
act,  would  also  seem  clear.  His  system  itself  was  permanent.  The  gates  and 
keys  of  this  kingdom  were  part  of  this  permanent  kingdom.  There  is  no  limita- 
tion put  to  the  duration  of  this  power  in  this  permanent  kingdom,  any  more 
than  there  is  to  the  office  of  President  of  the  United  States,  in  our  constitution. 
But  our  Lord  says,  without  any  limitation  as  to  time,  "  I  will  give  unto  thee  the 
keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven." 


THE  PRIMACY  OF  ST.  PETER.  211 

government  to  His  subordinates,  and  governs  through  Hia 
agent,  Peter,  and  sub-agents,  appointed  by  Peter. 

By  the  delivery  of  this  symbol,  Peter  had  the  power,  not 
only  to  loose,  but  to  bind — the  power  to  shut,  as  well  as  to 
open.  This  power  to  do  both  was  necessary,  as  the  Church 
must  be  often  opened  to  some,  and  shut  against  others.  The 
power  was  permanent  from  its  very  nature,  and  needed  at  all 
times  during  the  existence  of  the  institution.  The  kingdom 
meant  is  the  visible  Church,  whose  gates  require  to  be  often 
opened,  and  often  shut.  Do  the  gates  of  a  city,  after  being 
opened  for  the  first  time,  always  stand  open  after  that  ?  And 
to  all  persons  ?  If  so,  of  what  use  are  the  gates  ?  The  very 
idea  of  keys  and  gates,  presupposes  the  utility  of  opening  to  all 
who  are  entitled  to  enter,  and  of  shutting  against  all  who  would 
enter  improperly.  True,  the  keys  were  necessary  to  open  the 
gates  for  the  first  time ;  but  they  are  equally  necessary  to  open 
and  shut,  at  intervals,  through  all  coming  time.  The  prophet 
said  Christ  should  open  and  no  man  should  shut,  and  should 
shut,  and  no  man  should  open.  Christ  was  to  do  both;  and 
what  He  does  by  His  agent,  He  does  Himself. 

But  those  who  concede  that  Peter  was  the  rock,  and  yet 
deny  his  supremacy,  insist  that  the  same  power  was  afterwards 
conferred  upon  all  the  apostles,  thus  making  them  all  equals. 
(Matt,  xviii.  18.)  But  if  this  conclusion,  drawn  from  conceded 
facts,  be  true,  why  did  Christ  do  an  idle  and  vain  thing  in  con- 
ferring the  power  separately  on  Peter.  Our  Lord  must  have 
had  some  motive  in  making  this  separate  delegation  of  power 
to  Peter.  What  could  it  have  been,  but  to  give  him  superiority 
over  the  others,  so  as  to  produce  unity  in  all  ? 

The  facts  conceded,  taken  in  connection  with  other  examples 
in  the  New  Testament,  constitute  a  very  strong  argument  to 
sustain  the  Catholic  view.  When  our  Lord  conferred  the 
power  to  bind  and  loose  upon  all,  He  did  not  promise  them  the 
keys,  as  He  did  separately  to  Peter.  This  is  a  marked  and 
most  material  difference  in  the  two  cases.  But  besides  this  dif- 
ference, the  other  instances  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament, 
show  what  was  intended.  For  example,  our  Lord  required  all 
to  fottow  Him,  (John  viii.  12 ;  x.  4.  Mark  viii.  38,)  yet  when 
He  addressed  Peter,  Andrew,  and  Matthew  individually,  and 


212  THE  PRIMACY  OF  ST.  PETER. 

said  "  follow  me,"  He  required  them  to  follow  Him  in  a  distinct 
and  peculiar  manner.  So,  when  it  is  said  that  John  was  the 
beloved  disciple,  is  it  not  clear  that  he  was  more  beloved  than 
the  others,  although  our  Lord  loved  them  all  most  tenderly  ? 
(Johnxiii.  1;  xv.  12,  15.)  So,  the  apostles  were  all  commis- 
sioned to  teach  all  nations — to  preach  to  every  creature — yet 
Sts.  Paul  and  Barnabas  were  sent  upon  a  special  mission,  and 
St.  Paul  called  himself  the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles.  Was  there 
nothing  peculiar  in  the  missions  of  Sts.  Paul  and  Barnaoas? 
Putting  these  examples  together,  and  they  show  that  our  Lord 
was  not  an  idle  lawgiver,  but  that  when  He  conferred  a  power 
separately  upon  a  certain  person,  He  intended,  by  the  very  act, 
to  give  him  a  peculiar  vocation,  although  the  same  power  was 
conferred  upon  others  collectively,  including  the  person  upon 
whom  it  was  separately  conferred. 

But  in  the  case  of  Peter,  this  is  made  clear,  by  the  following 
extract : 

"  So,  when  they  had  dined,  Jesus  saith  to  Simon  Peter,  Si- 
mon, son  of  Jonas,  lovest  thou  me  more  than  these  ?  He  saith 
unto  him,  Yea,  Lord;  thou  knowest  that  I  love  thee.  He 
saith  unto  him,  Feed  my  lambs.  He  saith  to  him  again  the 
second  time,  Simon,  son  of  Jonas,  lovest  thou  me  ?  He  saith 
unto  him,  Yea,  Lord ;  thou  knowest  that  I  love  thee.  He  saith 
unto  him,  Feed  my  sheep.  He  saith  unto  him  the  third  time, 
Simon,  son  of  Jonas,  lovest  thou  me  ?  Peter  was  grieved  be- 
cause he  said  unto  him  the  third  time,  Lovest  thou  me  ?  And 
he  said  unto  him,  Lord,  thou  knowest  all  things ;  thou  knowest 
that  I  love  thee.  Jesus  saith  unto  him,  Feed  my  sheep." 
(John  xxi.) 

The  expression  "  more  than  these  "  is  elliptical.  Mr.  Camp- 
bell construed  it  to  mean :  "  Do  you  love  me  more  than  these 
fish,  or  these  victuals  ?  »  (Debate  C.  &  P.,  86.)  The  Catholic 
interpretation  is :  "  Do  you  love  me  more  than  these  disciples 
love  me  ?  >' 

In  support  of  his  view,  Mr.  C.  insisted  that  Peter  could  not 
have  answered  such  a  question,  because  he  could  not  know  how' 
much  his  companions  loved  his  Master.     But  this  objection 
seems  more  plausible  than  just.     Whether  or  riot  Peter  loved 
our  Lord  more  than  the  other  disciples  loved  Him,  he  certainly 


THE  PKIMACY  OF  ST.  PETER.  213 

gave  the  most  conclusive  evidence  that  he  did.  In  the  very 
chapter  in  which  the  passage  occurs,  the  moment  that  he  knew 
it  was  our  Lord,  he  cast  himself  into  the  sea,  while  the  others 
remained  with  the  fish,  and  he  only  returned  to  them  after 
our  Lord  commanded  to  bring  of  the  fish  they  had  taken. 
Besides,  the  construction  of  Mr.  C.  is  shown  to  be  erroneous  by 
the  form  of  the  answer  of  Peter  ;  for  if  the  construction  of  Mr. 
C.  be  correct,  then  Peter  would  have  answered :  "  Lord,  thou 
knowest  that  I  love  thee  more  than  I  love  these  fish,  or  these 
victuals."  No  motive  of  delicacy  could  have  influenced  him  in 
such  a  case.  And  no  motive  of  delicacy  could  have  influenced 
our  Lord,  as  such  a  feeling  is  not  indulged  by  lawgivers  at  the 
expense  of  truth.  Our  Lord  knew  the  answer  that  Peter  would 
give ;  and  the  form  of  the  answer,  shows  that  Peter  was  gov- 
erned by  motives  of  humility  and  delicacy,  while  our  Lord  was 
not.  In  justice  to  the  other  disciples,  we  cannot  suppose  that 
they  would  be  hurt  by  the  act  of  their  Master,  while  they  might 
object  to  the  act  of  Peter  in  determining  that  he  loved  their 
Lord  more  than  they  loved  Him.  It  was  not  necessary  for  Pe- 
ter to  state  that  he  loved  his  Master  more  than  the  others,  be- 
cause our  Lord  knew  the  fact,  as  well  without  that  statement, 
as  with  it ;  and  Peter,  in  his  answer,  appeals  to  this  knowledge. 
Our  Lord,  hi  His  question,  did  not  settle  the  matter  as  to  the 
one  who  loved  Him  most ;  and  Peter  did  not  determine  it,  but 
referred  the  question  back  to  the  knowledge  of  Christ.  The 
object  of  our  Lord,  in  asking  the  question,  was  to  make  a  fitting 
opportunity  to  commit  His  whole  flock  to  Peter.  And  in  doing 
this,  our  Lord  Himself  answered  the  question  in  the  affirmative, 
that  Peter  did  love  Him  more  than  the  rest.  The  answer  of 
Peter  is  not  fully  responsive  to  the  interrogatory ;  and  when 
given,  he  did  not  know  what  our  Lord  intended.  His  Master, 
at  that  precise  point  of  time,  left  the  question,  as  to  the  one 
who  loved  Him  most,  an  open  one.  The  humility  of  Peter,  and 
his  knowledge  that  Christ  knew  all  things,  prevented  him  from 
assuming  to  determine  a  question  of  delicacy,  as  between  him 
and  his  companions ;  and,  therefore,  he  simply  answered  that 
he  loved  his  Master  who  knew  all  things,  and  referred  the 
measure  of  this  love,  as  compared  with  the  love  of  his  compan- 
ions, back  to  his  Lord.  This  view  makes  the  conduct  of  Peter 


214  THE  PRIMACY  OF  ST.  PETER. 

intelligible,  and  explains  the  reason  why  our  Lord  did  not  re- 
prove him  for  an  apparent  evasion  of  His  question.  But  upon 
the  theory  of  Mr.  Campbell,  Peter  evaded  the  question  pro- 
pounded, without  any  reason  for  doing  so. 

But  aside  from  this  question,  the  passage,  when  fairly  con- 
sidered, is  a  very  clear  support  of  the  primacy  of  St.  Peter.  It 
is  true  that  Mr.  Campbell  and  others  object  to  the  interpretation 
of  sheep  as  bishops,  and  lambs  as  laity.  But  while  they  make 
this  objection,  they  do  not  help  us  any  by  informing  us  what 
Christ  did,  in  their  opinion,  mean  by  this  distinction.  He  must 
have  meant  something ;  otherwise  the  distinction  was  idle  and 
useless.  What  then  did  He  mean  ? 

In  the  tenth  chapter  of  St.  John's  Gospel,  when  Christ  speaks 
of  His  entire  flock,  as  separated  from  the  world,  He  simply  called 
them  sheep.  But  when  He  comes  to  speak  of  them  as  distin- 
guished among  themselves  into  two  classes,  He  calls  one  class 
lambs,  and  the  other  sheep. 

That  this  meaning  is  correct,  would  seem  plain  when  we  con- 
sider that  Christ  called  Himself  the  shepherd,  and  St.  Peter 
afterwards  calls  Him  the  Chief  shepherd.  There  cannot  be  a 
chief  shepherd  without  under-shepherds.  The  comparison  of 
the  sheepfold  is  kept  up  by  the  apostles  Peter  and  Paul,  as  we 
have  already  seen.  That  the  laity  are  meant  by  lambs  would 
seem  clear  from  the  fact  that  the  lambs  are  accustomed  to  fol- 
low the  sheep ;  and  St.  Paul  tells  his  brethren  to  obey,  submit 
to,  and  follow  the  faith  of  them  who  had  the  rule  over  them. 

But  whether  this  distinction  be  correct  or  not,  one  thing  is 
clear,  that  the  two  classes,  lambs  and  sheep,  did  comprise  the 
entire  flock,  and  they  were  all  committed  separately  to  Peter. 
And  this  being  true,  Peter  bore  to  all  the  others  the  superior  re- 
lation of  under-shepherd,  next  in  authority  to  Christ ;  and  he 
must,  of  necessity,  have  had  superior  jurisdiction  over  those  who 
bore  to  him  the  subordinate  relation  of  sheep  to  their  shepherd. 
To  say  otherwise  would  destroy  the  unity  of  the  whole  figure ; 
for  the  commission  to  feed  is  always  a  commission  to  govern  and 
direct,  as  may  be  conclusively  seen,  by  an  examination  of  the 
texts  referred  to  below.* 

*  2  Kings  (Sam.)  v.  2  ;  Ps.  Ixxvii.  71,72;  Ezech.  xxxii.  1-10 ;  Jer.  iii.  15 ; 
xxiii.  1,  2,  4;  Nath.  iii.  18  c.  ;  Is.  xl.  11 :  Mich.  vii.  14;  Ezech.  xxxii.  10-23  ; 
John  x.  1  ;  1  Peter  v.  4,  2  ;  Acts  xx.  28. 


THE  PRIMACY  OF  ST.  PETER.  215 

That  the  whole  flock  was  committed  to  Peter,  is  further 
shown  by  the  twenty-second  chapter  of  St.  Luke's  Gospel. 

"  And  the  Lord  said,  Simon,  Simon,  Satan  hath  desired  to 
have  you,  (in  the  plural,)  that  he  may  sift  you  as  wheat ;  but  I 
have  prayed  for  thee,  that  thy  faith  fail  not :  and  when  thou  art 
converted,  strengthen  thy  brethren."  In  the  Douay  Bible,  "  con- 
firm thy  brethren." 

It  is  conceded  by  all  that  the  pronoun  you  referred  to  all  the 
apostles.  Why  then  did  our  Lord  pray  separately  for  Peter, 
and,  when  he  is  converted,  he  is  charged  to  strengthen  or  con- 
firm his  brethren  ?  We  are  not  informed  that  He  prayed  sep- 
arately for  any  one  or  more  of  the  others. 

If  this  passage  stood  alone,  it  could,  perhaps,  be  explained 
upon  some  other  hypothesis.  But  taken  in  connection  with  the 
fact  that  Christ  promised  the  keys  to  Peter,  and  afterwards  com- 
mitted His  entire  flock  to  him,  both  lambs  and  sheep,  the  most 
simple  and  natural  conclusion  is  that  Christ  used  Peter  as  His 
superior  agent  to  confirm  the  others. 

§  4.   Objections  considered. 

1.  It  has  been  often  objected,  that  after  Christ  had  promised 
to  found  His  Church  upon  Peter,  He  said  to  him :  "  Get  thee 
behind  me,  Satan,"  <fcc.     This  text  has  been  much  perverted ; 
but  Mr.  Campbell  conceded  that  our  Lord  did  not  call  Peter, 
Satan,  but  simply  opponent.     "  The  word  Satanas,  signifies  ad- 
versary.    Jesus  calls  him  not  ho  satanas^  Satan,  but  simply  op- 
ponent.    Stand   aside,  thou  who  opposest  me  in  this  matter. 
Thou  dost  not  understand  these  divine  things."  (Deb.  C.  &  P.,  95.) 

The  fact  that  Peter  erred  from  his  very  love  of  his  Master, 
does  not  show  that  he  was  not  afterwards  qualified  to  be  the  Su- 
preme Head  of  the  Church  on  earth.  On  the  contrary,  Mr. 
Campbell,  while  denying  the  existence  of  the  office,  clearly 
proved  his  eminent  fitness  for  such  a  position.  (Debate  C.  & 
P.,  86,  87.) 

2.  It  is  stated  in  the  eighth  chapter  of  Acts,  that  the  apos- 
tles sent  Peter  and  John  to  Samaria  ;  and  it  is  objected  that  this 
fact  conflicts  with  the  Catholic  theory.     Mr.  Campbell  thought 
"  this  fact  spoke  volumes  against  the  pretended  successors  of 
Peter."     (Debate  C.  <fc  P.,  97.) 


216  THE  PRIMACY  OP  ST.  PETEK. 

But  is  this  true  ?  Suppose  we  take  the  theory  of  Mr.  Camp* 
bell,  that  all  the  apostles  were  independent  equals,  to  be  true, 
for  the  sake  of  the  argument  only,  then  how  could  all  the  apos- 
ties  together  have  the  right  to  send  a  portion  upon  a  mission 
without  their  consent  ?  Equals  have  no  right  to  command 
equals.  But  if  we  say  that  Christ  created  a  college  of  teachers, 
making  the  college  superior  to  each  member,  then  we  must  con- 
cede  that  this  college  was  perpetual,  and  we  are  forced  to  admit 
succession. 

The  fact  is  entirely  reconcilable  with  the  Catholic  theory, 
and  in  strict  accordance  with  it.  The  act  of  sending  was  the 
act  of  the  college,  including  the  Head,  Peter.  He,  like  any 
other  individual,  could  act  in  different  capacities,  under  mere 
delegated  authority.  In  the  Catholic  theory,  he  was  the  equal 
of  the  other  apostles  as  teacher  under  the  commission,  "  Go 
teach,"  and  superior  to  them  under  the  separate  delegation  of 
power  in  virtue  of  the  keys ;  therefore,  the  college,  with  Peter 
at  its  head,-  was  superior  to  Peter  in  his  capacity  of  teacher  un- 
der the  commission.  The  act  of  the  college  was  the  concurrent 
act  of  all,  including  Peter,  and  with  his  consent,  he  could  well 
be  sent  with  John.  As  Peter  filled  different  capacities,  one  su- 
preme, and  the  others  subordinate,  he  had,  necessarily,  the  ex- 
clusive right  to  determine,  in  the  first  instance,  the  capacity  in 
which  he  would  act ;  but  when  he  had  done  this,  and  had  con- 
sented to  act  in  a  subordinate  capacity,  he  was,  in  this  capacity, 
subject  to  the  whole  college,  which  included  himself  in  his  su- 
preme capacity.  The  duty  to  be  performed  was  one  that  apper- 
tained, in  its  nature,  to  an  inferior  capacity.  There  was,  there- 
fore, nothing  incompatible  with  the  Catholic  theory  hi  the  act 
of  the  college  sending  St.  Peter  with  St.  John. 

But  the  same  objection  will  lie  against  the  theory  of  Mr. 
Campbell.  For  example,  the  teachers  who  insisted  upon  the 
necessity  of  circumcision  were  the  inferiors  of  St.  Paul ;  and  yet 
we  are  told  that  "  they  determined  that  Paul  and  Barnabas,  and 
certain  others  of  them,  should  go  up  to  Jerusalem  unto  the  apos- 
tles and  elders  about  this  question."  (Acts  xv.  2.)  "  They 
determined."  Who  were  they  ?  Is  it  not  certain  that  the  pro- 
noun they  included  these  teachers  as  well  as  Paul  and  Barnabas  ? 
How,  then,  will  Mr.  Campbell  reconcile  this  fact  with  the  prin 


THE  PRIMACY  OF  ST.  PETER.  217 

ciple  upon  which  his  objection  is  based  ?  These  teachers  were 
inferiors  to  St.  Paul.  Yet  they  (including  these  teachers)  de- 
termined that  Paul  and  others  should  go  up.  In  other  words, 
they  sent  them.  To  determine  that  they  should  go  up,  was  to 
send  them.  And  with  due  deference  to  the  opinion  of  the 
learned  debater,  I  must  say  that  "  this  fact "  is  more  difficult  of 
reconciliation  with  his  theory  than  with  the  Catholic. 

3.  After  St.  Peter  had  admitted  Cornelius  into  the  Church, 
it  is  stated  in  the  eleventh  chapter  of  Acts,  that  "they  that  were 
of  the  circumcision  contended  with  him ; "  and  Mr.  Campbell 
thought  this  fact  was  "  still  more  humiliating  to  the  successors  " 
of  Peter. 

But  was  Mr.  Campbell  right  ?  The  act  of  St.  Peter,  in  ad- 
mitting Cornelius  into  the  Church,  was  an  official  act,  performed 
under  the  assumed  authority  of  Christ ;  but  though  an  official 
act,  it  was  not  performed  by  him  in  his  capacity  as  head  of  the 
Church,  but  in  his  capacity  as  teacher  under  the  commission. 
The  act  of  admitting  individuals  into  the  Church  could  have 
been  performed  by  any  other  teacher.  The  thing  done  belonged 
to  an  inferior  capacity.  Besides  this,  the  question  was  new, 
and  had  never  been  authoritatively  determined  ;  and  St.  Peter 
had  acted  without  the  knowledge  of  the  other  teachers. 

But  the  objection  proves  too  much.  The  fact  is  just  as  diffi- 
cult to  reconcile  with  Mr.  Campbell's  theory  as  with  the  Cath- 
olic. These  men  were  not  apostles,  and  under  any  and  every 
theory,  they  were  inferiors  to  St.  Peter.  And  when  well  con- 
sidered, it  will  be  seen  that  under  any  theory,  Catholic  or  Prot- 
estant, we  can  only  account  for  the  conduct  of  these  men  upon 
the  ground  that  they  admitted  themselves  to  be  inferiors,  and 
as  such,  they  asked  for  the  reasons  for  the  act  of  their  superior, 
and  St.  Peter  gave  them  the  facts,  as  his  justification.  An  infe- 
rior may  well  contend  with  a  superior  without  a  violation  of 
duty,  when  the  latter  permits  it  to  be  done.  It  amounts  to  no 
more  than  a  statement  that  the  inferior  endeavored,  by  argu- 
ment, to  sustain  his  view  before  the  superior.  It  is  not  an  act 
of  disobedience.  Conceding  the  Catholic  theory  to  be  true,  St. 
Peter  might  well  permit  these  men  to  contend  with  him  about 
a  new  question,  not  before  authoritatively  settled. 

4.  It  is  insisted  that  the  conduct  of  St.  Peter,  in  the  Council 

20 


218  THE  PRIMACY  OF  ST.  PETER. 

of  Jerusalem,  was  inconsistent  with  the  theory  that  he  was  the 
Head  of  the  Church  on  earth. 

It  does  not  appear  from  the  narrative,  as  found  in  the  fif- 
teenth chapter  of  Acts,  who  called  the  council,  or  who  presided. 
The  fact  that  Sts.  Paul  and  Barnabas  and  other  teachers  "  de- 
termined to  go  up  to  Jerusalem  unto  the  apostles  and  elders 
about  this  question,"  shows  that  all  that  they  determined  was  that 
they  "  would  go  up^  not  that  the  council  should  be  called 
Whether  the  council  was  called  by  St.  Peter  or  not,  it  is  certain 
that  it  was  called  by  his  consent,  and  this  consent  would  give  it 
his  sanction.  Agency  can  be  affirmed  by  the  subsequent  assent 
of  the  principal,  as  well  as  created  by  his  prior  act.  So,  under 
the  Catholic  theory,  those  at  Antioch  might  well  determine, 
for  themselves,  to  submit  a  question  to  the  council ;  but  they 
could  not  compel  the  council  to  sit.  This  was  not  at  all  in  con- 
flict with  the  authority  of  St.  Peter,  conceding  he  was  Head  of 
the  Church. 

It  is  also  certain  that  there  had  been  much  disputing  in  the 
council  until  St.  Peter  spoke.  But  after  he  spoke,  the  friends 
of  circumcision  were  silent.  Not  a  voice  was  afterwards  raised 
in  support  of  this  error.  The  fact  that  he  spoke  in  the  council, 
is  not  at  all  inconsistent  with  the  theory  of  his  primacy.  He 
had  the  right  to  speak,  conceding  that  he  presided.  So  has  the 
Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives  the  right  to  speak  and 
vote.  The  fact  that  St.  James  was  the  first  to  propose  the  ex- 
act form  of  the  decree,  is  in  nowise  contrary  to  the  Catholic 
theory.  The  Pope  may  or  may  not  speak  in  council.  He  must 
constitute  a  part  of  every  council,  either  in  person  or  by  his  le- 
gates, and  must  himself  sanction  their  decrees,  to  give  them 
effect. 

It  must  be  conceded  that  the  history  of  the  council  is  con- 
cise, not  full.  We  do  not  know  from  it  that  any  one  did,  or  did 
not  preside  ;  but  it  is  most  reasonable  to  suppose  that  some  one 
did  preside ;  and  if  any  one  did,  it  certainly  is  most  probable 
it  was  St.  Peter. 

These  objections  are  based  upon  an  inaccurate  and  confused 
conception  of  the  Catholic  theory.  One  thing  appears  certain, 
and  that  is :  that  St.  Peter  was  always  on  hand,  and  always 
most  forward  and  prominent  on  all  great  occasions.  And 


THE  PRIMACY  OF  ST.  PETER.  219 

whether  he  was  constituted  Head  of  the  Church  on  earth  or 
not,  his  conduct  was  consistent  with  that  character. 

5.  It  has  been  objected  that  the  conduct  of  St.  Paul,  in  with- 
standing St.  Peter  to  the  face,  for  a  personal  act  of  the  latter, 
was  inconsistent  with  his  alleged  official  superiority.     But  those 
who  make  this  objection,  seem  to  forget  that  St.  Peter  was  an 
individual  member  of  the  Church,  and  as  such,  possessed  per- 
sonal free  agency,  and  could  sin,  as  others.     In  his  private  ca- 
pacity he  was  no  more  than  any  other  member ;  and  St.  Paul 
had  the  right  to  reprove  him  for  his  personal  dissimulation,  even 
conceding  the  Catholic  theory  to  be  true.     It  would  seem  from 
the  statement  of  St.  Paul,  that  St.  Peter  admitted  his  error,  as 
he  made  no  reply  to  the  objection.     St.  Paul  himself  seems  af- 
terwards to  have  fallen  into  the  same  error,  when  he  purified 
himself  and  was  found  in  the  temple.     (Acts  xxi.) 

But  if  it  be  said  that  the  error  of  St.  Peter  was  official,  and 
not  private,  then  it  is  difficult  to  understand  why  St.  Paul  had 
the  right  to  call  in  question  the  official  act  of  an  individually 
infallible  apostle. 

6.  It  was  objected  by  Mr.  Campbell,  that  St.  Peter,  in  his 
two  Epistles,  nowhere  expressly  assumes  to  speak  as  Supreme 
Head  of  the  Church,  and  that  this  silence  is  inconsistent  with 
such  a  capacity. 

But  omission  is  a  very  weak  argument.  One  affirmative 
witness,  is  worth  many  negative  ones.  Omission  is  the  main 
ground  upon  which  the  Infidel  relies  to  show  contradictions  in 
the  four  Gospels ;  and  is  one  of  the  positions  that  Dr.  Paley 
confutes  in  his  Evidences  of  Christianity. 

It  is  true,  that  St.  Peter  simply  calls  himself  an  apostle — an 
elder — a  servant,  but  it  is  equally  true,  that  he  was  all  these, 
and  could  have  still  been  the  Head  of  the  College.  St.  John 
writes  his  Epistles,  simply  calling  himself  an  elder.  In  his  Epis- 
tle to  Philemon,  St.  Paul  simply  calls  himself  a  prisoner ;  and  in 
his  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  he  does  not  mention  the  fact  that 
he  was  an  apostle.  St.  James  commences  his  Epistle  by  calling 
himself  a  servant.  Several  of  St.  Paul's  Epistles  are  commenced 
as  if  written  jointly  with  others.  Now  these  omissions  do  not 
prove  that  the  several  authors  were  only  entitled  to  fill  the  po- 
sitions mentioned,  and  no  others. 


220  THE  PRIMACY  OF  ST.  PETER. 

In  fact,  there  is  nothing  in  either  Epistle  that  required  St. 
Peter  to  state,  or  to  assume  to  act  as  if  he  was  Supreme  Head 
of  the  Church,  conceding  that  he  was  such.  They  were  general, 
not  special.  As  the  Head  of  the  Church,  the  Pope  rules  the 
Church  through' his  subordinates,  \itliey  fail  to  do  their  duty, 
they  can  be  reached  directly  by  him.  But  the  individual  mem- 
bers  are  primarily  responsible  to  their  immediate  pastors,  with 
the  right  of  appeal  to  the  Pope. 

Conceding  the  truth  of  the  Catholic  theory,  for  the  sake  of 
the  argument  only,  there  is  nothing  inconsistent  in  the  silence 
of  St.  Peter,  with  this  theory.  All  that  he  said  he  could  well 
say  in  another  and  a  subordinate  capacity.  This  being  the  fact? 
his  admitted  humility  fully  explains  his  silence. 

"  Peter's  agency  in  the  narrative  of  Mark  is  asserted  by  all 
ancient  writers,  and  is  confirmed  by  the  fact,  that  his  humility 
is  conspicuous  in  every  part  of  it,  where  any  fact  is  or  might  be 
related  of  him ;  his  weakness  and  fall  being  fully  exposed,  while 
things  which  might  redound  to  his  honor,  are  either  omitted  or 
but  slightly  mentioned."  (GreenleaPs  Ev.  of  4  Evan.,  45.) 

It  will  also  be  observed,  that  St.  Peter  gives  his  testimony 
to  facts  he  had  seen  and  heard  as  a  chosen  witness  of  Christ. 
He  also  records  certain  prophecies  made  by  him.  Neither  of 
these  capacities  belonged  to  his  office  as  Head  of  the  College. 
The  apostles  were  the  only  chosen  witnesses,  and  this  fact  made 
it  proper  for  him  to  state  that  he  was  an  apostle,  when  giving 
his  testimony  in  his  Epistles.  He  was  also  writing  a  part  of  the 
Scriptures.  The  gift  of  prophecy,  and  the  inspiration  of  a  Scrip- 
tural writer,  were  special  gifts;  because  not  confined  to  the 
apostles.  These  special  gifts  did  not  belong  to  the  office  of  Su- 
preme Head  of  the  Church ;  and,  therefore,  there  could  have 
been  no  propriety  in  his  assuming  to  act  in  that  capacity,  when 
writing  his  Epistles. 

1.  Mr.  Campbell  insisted  that  the  office  of  Supreme  Head 
of  the  Church,  being  an  important  office,  should  have  been 
clearly  defined  in  the  Scriptures ;  and  its  not  being  so  specified, 
was  a  strong  argument  against  the  existence  of  the  office. 
(Debate  C.  &  P.,  111.)  In  support  of  his  position  he  read  cer- 
tain portions  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  relating 
to  the  office  of  President. 


THE  PRIMACY  OF  ST.  PETER.  221 

This  objection  would  be  entitled  to  great  weight  if  all  of 
these  several  things  were  true:  1.  That  Peter's  superiority  is 
not  plainly  stated.  2.  That  the  Scriptures  contain  all  the  code. 
3.  That  they  assumed  to  be  regular  and  methodical.  4.  That 
the  right  of  the  Church  to  determine  authoritatively  all  ques- 
tions arising  under  the  law,  was  not  clearly  stated. 

If  there  be  any  things  in  the  Scriptures  plainly  taught,  the 
power  of  the  Church  to  decide  all  questions  is,  in  my  best  judg- 
ment, one  of  them.  But  Mr.  Campbell's  position  proves  too 
much.  If  applied  to  other  portions  of  the  Scriptures,  it  would 
be  seen  how  unsound  it  is.  There  are  many  of  the  most  im- 
portant tenets  not  more  plainly,  if  as  plainly,  taught.  The  au- 
thority for  observing  the  first,  for  the  seventh  day  of  the  week, 
is  not  very  easily  found  in  Scripture.  The  same  may  be  said 
of  the  authority  for  not  washing  feet,  contrary  to  the  command 
of  Christ,  as  stated  in  the  twelfth  chapter  of  St.  John's  Gospel. 
It  would  seem  that  Mr.  C.'s  rule  of  criticism  would  ruin  his 
theory  of  Scripture  alone. 

That  Peter  was  the  rock  upon  which  the  Church  was  built, 
seems  very  plain  to  my  mind ;  and  this  fact  once  conceded,  his 
supremacy  follows,  as  a  simple  logical  consequence.  Mr.  C. 
seems  to  have  been  fully  sensible  of  this  result,  as  he  put  his 
denials  in  the  right  place,  to  be  apparently  consistent.  An  en- 
tire negation,  however  false,  is  still  consistent  with  itself.  Mr. 
C.,  therefore,  denied  that  Peter  was  the  rock.  But  with  all 
due  deference,  it  would  seem  that  he  did  not  deny  quite  enough. 
He  should  have  insisted  that  there  were  no  gates  and  no  keys ; 
for  the  reason,  that  they  were  perfectly  idle  and  useless,  in  the 
contemplation  of  his  theory.  (Debate  C.  &  P.,  85.)  They 
were  never  used  but  once  /  and  a  simple  opening  in  the  wall,  or 
no  enclosure,  would  have  suited  his  theory  better.  The  idea 
of  making  a  wall,  constructing  gates,  and  providing  keys,  to  be 
used  but  once,  and  that  at  the  beginning,  is  not  very  intelli- 
gible. 

8.  In  the  twenty-second  chapter  of  St.  Luke's  Gospel,  it  is 
stated : 

"  And  there  was  a  strife  among  them,  which  of  them  should 
be  accounted  the  greatest.  And  he  said  unto  them,  The  kings 
of  the  Gentiles  exercise  lordship  over  them ;  and  they  that  ex- 


222  THE  PRIMACY  OF  ST.  PETER. 

ercise  authority  upon  them  are  called  benefactors.  But  ye  shall 
not  be  so ;  but  he  that  is  greatest  among  you,  let  him  be  as  the 
younger,  and  he  that  is  chief,  as  he  that  doth  serve.  For 
whether  is  greater,  he  that  sitteth  at  meat,  or  he  that  serveth  ? 
is  not  he  that  sitteth  at  meat  ?  but  I  am  among  you  as  he  that 
serveth."  The  same  is  substantially  related  in  the  twentieth 
chapter  of  Matthew. 

It  has  been  often  insisted  that  this  passage  is  in  conflict  with 
the  Catholic  theory.  But  is  this  true  ? 

It  appears  from  the  facts  stated  in  other  and  subsequent 
portions  of  the  four  Gospels,  that  at  the  time  this  strife  occurred, 
the  apostles  believed  that  the  incoming  kingdom  of  Christ 
would  be  temporal.  Hence  their  natural  pride  prompted  them 
to  contend  as  to  who  should  be  the  greatest  in  this  earthly 
kingdom.  It  was  to  correct  this  error  of  judgment,  and  to  re- 
prove their  pride,  that  our  Lord  used  the  language  quoted. 
He  states,  in  substance,  that  He  did  not  come  to  establish  such 
temporal  authority  as  the  Gentiles  exercised,  and,  therefore,  in 
that  respect,  they  were  not  to  be  distinguished  one  above  an- 
other by  His  law.  But  to  prevent  them  from  construing  this 
general  language  into  a  prohibition  of  all  distinction,  He  expressly 
states  that  one  should  be  the  greatest,  and  should  be  chief;  and 
to  restrain  all  pride  in  the  exercise  of  this  pre-eminence,  He  tells 
them  that  the  greatest  shall  be  (not  the  younger)  but  as  the 
younger,  and  the  chief,  as  he  that  serves ;  and  then  compares 
the  state  or  position  of  that  one  with  His  oicn,  saying  that  He 
was  among  them  as  he  that  served.  As  our  Lord  was  among 
them  as  he  that  served,  and  yet  He  was  the  greatest  in  power 
and  authority ;  so,  the  one  that  was  to  be  chief,  should  be  as 
one  that  served.  The  example  of  the  superior  authority  of 
Christ,  and  the  laborious  and  humble  manner  of  its  exercise  by 
Him,  was  expressly  held  up  to  them  as  a  pattern  for  the  one 
that  should  be  chief  among  them,  after  He  was  gone.  If  Christ 
Himself  could  be  among  them  as  he  that  served,  so  the  one  that 
would  be  chief,  could  be  among  them  as  he  that  served,  and 
still  retain  the  chief  authority,  because  he  would  be  but  the  agent 
of  Christ,  acting  for  Him,  and  in  His  stead.  But  this  authority 
was  to  be  exercised  by  him,  as  laboriously  and  as  meekly  as  his 
Master  had  exercised  the  same  authority  before  him.  The 


TUK  PRIMACY  OF  ST.  PETER.  223 

office  was  to  possess  power;  but  power  accompanied  with  the 
greatest  labor  and  humility.  Now  if  Christ  intended  that  such 
an  office  should  exist,  these  are  the  very  features  He  would  be- 
stow upon  it.  He  would  unite  power,  labor,  and  humility. 
This  would  be  in  harmony  with  the  whole  scope  and  spirit  of 
His  system.  Power  was  indispensable  to  enable  the  officer  to 
accomplish  the  great  ends  intended ;  while  labor  and  humility 
were  necessary  checks  upon  pride  and  ambition.  It  was  a 
beautiful  combination  of  all  the  efficient,  yet  safe,  features  of  an 
office. 

So  far  from  this  passage  being  in  conflict  with  the  Catholic 
theory,  it  is,  when  justly  considered,  a  very  strong  support  of 
it.  Had  Christ  ended  by  saying,  in  general  terms,  "  But  ye 
shall  not  be  so,"  then  His  meaning  would  not  have  been  clear. 
But  He  does  not  stop  there,  but  goes  on  to  point  out  expressly 
another  kind  of  distinction  that  should  exist  among  them ;  and 
to  fix  clearly  the  character  of  that  distinction,  and  the  manner 
of  its  exercise,  He  compares  the  situation  of  this  "  chief"  with 
His  own.  When  a  lawgiver  first  lays  down  a  principle  in  gen- 
eral terms,  and  then  is  careful  to  make  an  express  exception, 
this  fact  only  shows  more  clearly  his  true  intent. 

9.  The  third  proposition  of  Mr.  Campbell  in  reference  to  the 
Catholic  Church  was  that  "  she  is  the  Babylon  of  John,  the 
Man  of  Sin  of  Paul,  and  the  empire  of  the  Youngest  Horn  of 
Daniel's  Sea  Monster."  (Debate  C.  &  P.,  224.) 

It  must  be  conceded  by  calm  and  dispassionate  men,  that 
the  language  of  prophecy  is  obscure.  There  are  good  and  suf- 
ficient reasons  why  it  should  be  so.  It  was  not  the  intention 
of  God  to  touch  the  free  agency  of  individuals,  but  to  leave  it 
untrammelled.  So,  it  was  His  purpose  to  keep  His  children 
always  vigilant  and  hopeful.  To  have  made  the  prophecies  in 
clear  and  distinct  language  would  have  defeated  the  evident 
purposes  of  Deity  in  making  them.  There  maybe  some  exceptions 
to  this  general  rule ;  but  if  so,  they  only  prove  it  to  be  true. 

Those  who  take  the  giddy  and  perilous  position  of  Reform- 
ers of  the  Christian  world,  are  necessarily  compelled  to  exhibit 
some  plausible  ground  upon  which  to  justify  their  conduct.  If 
they  can  find  nothing  in  the  past  or  present,  that  will  clearly 
sustain  their  high  pretensions,  it  is  quite  natural,  if  not  a  neces- 


224:  THE    PRIMACY    OF    ST.    PETER. 

sity,  for  them  to  plunge  into  the  unseen  future,  where  the  imag- 
ination has  ample  room  to  revel.  He  who  cannot  rely,  either 
upon  the  past  or  present,  to  sustain  his  views,  must  necessarily 
give  them  up,  or  draw  upon  the  credit  of  the  future.  And  so, 
he,  who  cannot  sustain  his  positions  by  the  plain  testimony  of 
Scripture,  would  necessarily  retreat  to  the  obscure  language  of 
prophecy.  It  has  been  so  with  Protestants.  Ever  since  the 
days  of  Luther  and  Calvin,  the  prophecies  of  both  Testaments 
have  constituted  a  most  extensive  field  of  labor  among  them. 

Mr.  Campbell  put  forth  his  interpretations  of  prophecy  in 
1837,  but  I  did  not  read  them  until  1845.  In  the  mean  time  the 
celebrated  Miller  put  forth  his,  which  I  read  in  the  winter  of 
1842-3.  Miller  had  put  his  views  together  in  a  very  plausible 
manner ;  but  the  event  did  not  transpire  at  the  period  predicted 
by  him.  If  I  remember  correctly,  the  world  was  to  have  been 
destroyed  in  1843,  according  to  his  theory.  The  theory  and 
illustrations  of  Mr.  Campbell  were  plausible;  but  there  were 
several  objections  quite  apparent.  Like  Miller,  he  was  candid 
enough  to  fix  the  time  when,  according  to  his  interpretation, 
the  Catholic  Church  is  to  be  destroyed.  "The  continuance  of 
the  Little  Horn,"  said  he,  "is  therefore  twelve  hundred  and 
sixty  years."  The  Man  of  Sin,  he  states,  "  was  a  young  man 
full-twenty-one  "  in  606.  Putting  these  together,  and  the  pe- 
riod fixed  by  Mr.  Campbell  is  1866.  Time,  which  is  wiser  than 
all  the  wits  in  the  world,  as  Lord  Hale  has  it,  and  which, 

"upon  the  far  shores  of  Existence 

Counts  each  wave-drop  swallowed  by  the  sand," 

will  soon  give  Mr.  Campbell  his  proper  position  as  an  interpreter 
of  prophecy. 

So  confident  was  Mr.  C.  in  the  correctness  of  his  interpreta- 
tion, that  he  went  on  to  say :  "  Such  a  catastrophe  is  even 
feared  at  Rome  itself."  After  giving  some  reasons  in  support 
of  this  statement,  he  says :  "  It  has  been  said  by  the  most  intel- 
ligent in  the  internal  affairs  of  Roman  Catholic  countries,  that 
it  would  not  be  the  most  unexpected  event  if  the  present  in- 
cumbent of  the  Papal  chair  should  be  the  last  of  the  Popes  of 
Rome."  "(Debate  C.  &  P.,  233.) 

It  was  in  1797  that  Pius  VI.  was  seized  and  taken  a  pris- 


THE  PRIMACY  OF  ST.  PETER.  225 

oner  to  France,  where  he  died,  after  two  years,  at  the  advanced 
age  of  eighty-t\vo.  The  city  of  Rome  was  in  the  hands  of  the 
French,  and  the  cardinals  were  so  scattered,  that  there  appeared 
to  be  no  possibility  of  their  uniting  to  elect  a  successor.  The 
enemies  of  the  Old  Church  everywhere  said :  "  The  Papacy  is 
destroyed ;  another  Pope  can  never  be  elected."  But  another 
Pope  was  elected.  So,  Gregory,  who  was  Pope  when  Mr. 
Campbell  spoke,  had  a  successor. 

Upon  reading  Mr.  C.'s  interpretation  I  could  see  some  ob- 
jections that  seemed  to  me  to  upset  his  theory.  The  propheti- 
cal number  666  was  the  number  of  a  man,  and  the  name  given 
by  Mr.  C.  was  improperly  written,  as  he  conceded.  Then  the 
words  "  The  Latin  Empire,"  which  in  Greek  agreed  with  the 
number,  was  not  the  name  of  a  man  ;  and  much  more  probably 
meant  Pagan  than  Papal  Rome.  The  name  itself  was  that  of 
Pagan  Rome.  Besides,  I  found  afterwards,  that  ingenious 
Catholics  had  found  that  the  Latin  name  of  Martin  Luther  con- 
tained this  number.  So  of  many  other  individuals.  The  Man 
of  Sin  more  probably  referred  to  an  individual.  The  prophecy 
could  not  refer  to  the  Catholic  Church,  because  the  Man  of  Sin 
was  to  exalt  himself  above  all  that  is  called  God  or  that  is  wor- 
shipped. It  seemed  plain,  that  this  character  must  claim  supe- 
riority over  all,  admitting  his  inferiority  to  none,  because  he 
was  to  exalt  himself.  This  he  could  not  do,  while  he  admitted 
himself  to  be  an  inferior,  and  was  himself  a  worshipper  of  one 
higher  than  he.  It  is  true  that  Mr.  C.,  to  get  over  this  great 
difficulty,  insisted  that  God,  in  the  passage,  might  mean  a  mag- 
istrate or  king.  But  this  could  not  be,  for  the  God  there  men- 
tioned was  clearly  God  Almighty,  because  the  apostle  says  the 

Man  of  Sin  should  exalt  himself  above  all  that  is  worshipped* 

+ 

*  Among  the  various  interpretations  which  Protestant  ingenuity  has  given 
rise  to,  that  of  a  Presbyterian  minister  in  Kentucky,  as  related  in  Dr.  Spalding's 
Life  of  Bishop  Flaget,  page  258,  is,  perhaps,  as  much  in  point  as  any  other  : 

"  St.  Paul  says,  <  the  mystery  of  iniquity  already  worketh ; '  but  you  know, 
my  friends,  that  Protestantism — in  its  present  form  and  shape — did  not  exist 
until  many  centuries  after  his  time  ;  therefore,  he  must  have  meant  the  Catholic 
Church,  or  '  popery,'  by  the  '  mystery  of  iniquity.' " 

The  minister  seemed  perfectly  willing  to  concede  the  non-existence  of  Prot- 
estantism in  the  days  of  St.  Paul,  provided  that,  by  doing  this,  he  could  annihi- 
late the  Catholic  Church. 

21 


226  THE  PRIMACY  OF  ST.  PETER. 

But  I  could  have  no  confidence  in  these  interpretations  fof 
other  reasons : 

1.  These  numerous  interpreters  differed  among  themselves 
most  materially. 

2.  They  also  differed  with  that  great  test  of  truth,  Time, 
which  had  proved  their  interpretations  to  be  false,  in  all  cases 
where  the  period  fixed  by  them  had  expired. 

3.  Many  of  the  most  candid  and  enlightened  Protestants 
condemned  these  interpretations. 

4.  The  most  fanatical  sects  and  individuals  had  generally 
been  the  most  ardent  and  expert  at  these  interpretations. 

5.  In   proportion   as   others   failed,    each    new   interpreter 
seemed,  if  any  thing,  the  more  confident.     They  all  agreed  that 
the  Catholic  Church  was  the  thing  foretold ;  and  as  each  pre- 
ceding expositor  failed,  each  succeeding  one  seemed  to  consider 
his  chances  of  success  that  much  enhanced. 

6.  These  continued  failures  in  this  line,  proved  the  truth  of 
the  remark  of  the  great  Bossuet,  speaking  of  these  false  inter- 
preters, "  that  they  suffer  themselves  to  be  transported  beyond 
all  bounds,  and  without  enlightening  the  understanding,  seek 
only  to  kindle  hatred  in  the  heart."  (His.  Va.,  B.  xiii.  sec.  27.) 

7.  The  inevitable  tendency  of  this  licentious   abuse  of  the 
Word  of  God,  was  to  bring  it  into  disrepute. 

Any  one  who  will  calmly  and  dispassionately  reflect  upon  the 
monstrous  abuses  of  private  interpretation  of  the  prophecies, 
will  see  the  wisdom  of  the  statement  of  St.  Peter,  "  that  no 
prophecy  of  Scripture  is  of  any  private  interpretation,"  and  that 
they  who  licentiously  violate  this  plain  prohibition  are  but  "  blind 
leaders  of  the  blind."  Mr.  Campbell,  near  the  close  of  his  re- 
marks upon  these  prophecies,  said  : 

"  I  did  not  intend,  indeed,  I  am  sorry  I  proposed,  an  argu- 
ment of  this  kind  before  such  an  assembly,  limited  as  I  am  at 
present  to  an  hour  or  two  at  most,  to  complete  it."  (Debate  C. 
&  P.,  248.) 

It  certainly  must  be  conceded  that  Mr.  C.  would  have  been 
the  wiser,  had  he  kept  his  first  resolution.* 

*  For  a  most  masterly  discussion  of  this  question,  the  reader  is  referred  to 
Bossuet's  History  of  the  Variations  of  the  Protestant  Churches,  Book  xiii.,  where 
he  will  find  tho  subject  very  fully  noticed. 


THE  PRIMACY  OF  ST.  PETER.  227 

§  5.  Testimony  of  the  Fathers. 

It  was  well  said  by  Mr.  Allies,  a  late  learned  Protestant  writ- 
er of  the  established  Church  :  "  So  long  as  the  Church  was  en- 
gaged in  a  fierce  and  unrelenting  conflict  with  the  Paganism  and 
despotism  of  the  empire,  she  could  hardly  exhibit  to  the  world 
her  complete  outward  organization."  (Cited  in  the  Primacy,  18.) 

I  shall  only  make  a  few  extracts  from  the  ancient  Fathers, 
referring  the  reader  to  the  late  able  work  of  Dr.  Ives,  (Trials 
of  a  Mind,  158,)  for  a  full  and  clear  statement  of  their  testimony, 
and  a  most  able  answer  to  the  main  objections  of  Protestant 
writers. 

The  letters  of  St.  Clement,  bishop  of  Rome  before  the  death 
of  St.  John  the  Evangelist,  and  of  St.  Ignatius,  his  disciple,  are 
not  without  weight  in  considering  this  question,  though  their 
testimony  is  not  so  positive  and  clear  as  that  of  St.  Irenaeus. 
Certain  divisions  existing  in  the  Church  at  Corinth,  even  after 
the  two  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  an  embassy  was  sent  by  St.  Clement 
to  that  Church.  It  is  not  certain  that  an  appeal  had  been  taken 
to  Rome,  but  it  is  certain  that  the  embassy  was  sent  from  Rome, 
for  St.  Clement  says  in  his  epistle : 

"  Those  who  have  been  sent  to  you  by  us — Claudius  Ephe- 
bus,  and  Valerius  Bito,  together  with  Fortunatus  also — send 
back  to  us  again,  with  all  speed,  in  peace  and  with  joy,  that  they 
may  the  sooner  acquaint  us  with  your  peace  and  unanimity  so 
much  prayed  for,  and  desired  by  us,  so  that  we  also  may  speed- 
ily rejoice  at  your  good  order."  (Ep.  i.  ad  Cor.,  n.  59.) 

In  the  Epistle  of  St.  Ignatius,  when  addressing  the  Church 
of  Rome,  there  is  a  marked  peculiarity,  deserving  of  notice. 

"  Ignatius,  which  is  also  Theophorus,  to  the  church  which 
hath  found  mercy  in  the  majesty  of  the  Father  Most  High,  and 
of  Jesus  Christ  his  only  Son,  (to  the  church)  beloved  and  en- 
lightened in  the  will  of  him  who  willeth  all  things,  which  are  ac- 
cording to  the  love  of  Jesus  Christ  our  God,  and  which  (church) 
has  foremost  station  (or  presides)  in  the  place  of  the  Romans, 
all-godly,  all-gracious,  all-blessed,  all -praised,  all-prospering,  all- 
hallowed,  and  having  first  place  (presiding)  in  love,  with  the 
name  of  Christ,  with  the  name  of  the  Father,  which  (church)  I 
greet  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  &c."  (Ep.  ad  Rom.) 


228  THE  PKIMACY  OF  ST.  PETER. 

St.  Irenseus,  the  disciple  of  St.  Polycarp,  the  disciple  of  St. 
John,  says : 

"  But  as  it  would  be  a  very  long  task,  to  enumerate  in  such 
a  volume  as  this,  the  succession  of  all  the  churches :  pointing 
out  that  tradition  which  the  greatest,  and  most  ancient,  and 
universally  known  church, — founded  and  constituted  at  Rome, 
by  the  two  most  glorious  apostles,  Peter  and  Paul, — derives 
from  the  apostles,  and  that  faith  announced  to  all  men,  which, 
through  the  succession  of  (her)  bishops  has  come  down  to  us, 
we  confound  all  those  who,  in  any  way,  whether  through  pleas- 
ing themselves,  or  vain  glory,  or  blindness,  and  perverse  opin- 
ion, assemble  otherwise  than  as  behoveth  them.  For  to  this 
church,  on  account  of  a  more  powerful  principality,  it  is  neces- 
sary that  every  church,  that  is,  those  who  are  on  every  side 
faithful,  resort,  in  which  (church)  always  by  those,  who  are  on 
every  side,  has  been  preserved  that  tradition  which  is  from 
the  apostles."  (Adv.  Hseres.,  1.  iii.,  c.  iii,  n.  2.) 

It  will  be  seen  how  very  explicit  and  clear  the  latter  portion 
of  this  extract  is.  It  was  necessary  that  every  church  resort  to 
that  of  Home  on  account  of  her  more  powerful  principality, 
and  those  who  did  so  were  faithful. 

Tertullian.  "  Was  any  thing  hidden  from  Peter,  who  was 
called  the  rock  whereon  the  church  was  to  be  built,  who  ob- 
tained the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  the  power  of 
loosing  and  binding  in  heaven  and  on  earth  ?  "  (De  Prescript. 
Hseret.,  n.  22.) 

"  Come  now,  thou  who  wilt  exercise  thy  curiosity  to  better 
purpose,  run  over  the  apostolic  churches,  in  which  the  very 
chairs  of  the  apostles,  to  this  very  day,  preside  over  their  own 
places,  in  which  their  own  authentic  writings  (letters)  are  read, 
echoing  the  voice,  and  making  the  face  of  each  present.  Is 
Achaia  near  thee  ?  Thou  hast  Corinth.  If  thou  art  not  far  from 
Macedonia,  thou  hast  Philippi,  thou  hast  the  Thessalonians. 
If  thou  canst  travel  into  Asia,  thou  hast  Ephesus.  But  if  thou 
art  near  to  Italy,  thou  hast  Rome,  whence  we  also  have  an  au- 
thority at  hand.  That  church  how  happy !  on  which  the  apos- 
tles poured  out  all  their  doctrine,  with  their  blood ;  where 
Peter  had  a  like  passion  with  the  Lord  ;  where  Paul  is 
crowned  with  an  end  like  the  Baptist's ;  where  the  apostle 


THE  PRIMACY  OF  ST.  PETER.  229 

John  was  plunged  into  boiling  oil,  and  suffered  nothing,  and 
was  afterwards  banished  to  an  island ;  let  us  see  what  she  hath 
learned,  what  taughtv  what  fellowship  she  hath  had  with  the 
churches  of  Africa  likewise."  (De  Prescript.  Hseret.,  n.  32-6.) 

It  has  been  objected  that  because  salvation  could  be  equally 
had  in  all  the  churches  referred  to  by  Tertullian,  that,  there- 
fore, they  were  all  equal  in  authority  with  that  of  Rome.  But 
this  does  not  follow.  Two  things  like  a  third,  are  like  each 
other.  Any  number  of  churches  resorting  to  the  Church  of 
Rome,  as  Irenaeus  has  it,  and  in  communion  with  her,  would 
necessarily  have  the  same  faith — teach  the  same  truth — admin- 
ister the  same  sacraments — and  of  course,  the  truth  and  salva- 
tion would  be  found  equally  in  all,  for  the  very  reason,  that 
they  would  all  speak  the  same  thing,  believe  the  same  thing, 
and  be  united  in  the  same  mind  and  judgment,  as  St.  Paul  hath 
it.  So,  the  very  same  law,  with  the  same  interpretation  of  it, 
is  administered  in  the  District  Courts  of  the  United  States  in 
Maine,  in  Florida,  in  Texas,  and  in  California ;  for  the  simple 
reason,  that  they  are  each  and  all  under  the  One  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States,  at  Washington.  St.  Cyprian,  speaking 
of  Cornelius  having  been  made  bishop  of  Rome,  says  he  was 
made  bishop  "  when  the  place  of  Fabian,  that  is,  when  the  place 
of  Peter,  and  the  rank  (grade)  of  the  sacerdotal  chair,  was  va- 
cant." (Ep.  Hi.  ad  Antoni.) 

"  Moreover,  after  all  this,  a  pseudo-bishop  having  been  set 
up  for  themselves  by  heretics,  they  dare  to  sail,  and  to  carry 
letters  from  schismatics  and  profane  persons,  to  the  chair  of 
Peter,  and  to  the  principal  church,  whence  the  unity  of  the 
priesthood  took  its  rise ;  nor  do  they  consider  that  the  Romans 
&re  those — whose  faith  was  praised  in  the  preaching  of  the  apos- 
tle— to  whom  faithlessness  cannot  have  access."  (Ep.  Iv.  ad 
Carnol,  p.  182-3.) 

Origen.  "What  in  a  previous  passage  (Matt.  xvi.  19)  was 
granted  to  Peter  alone,  seems  here  (Matt,  xviii.  18)  to  be  shown 
to  be  granted  to  all  who  have  addressed  their  admonitions  to 
all  sinners,  in  order  that,  if  they  be  not  listened  to,  they  may 
find  on  earth  the  person  condemned  to  be  as  a  heathen  and  a 
publican,  since  such  a  one  is  bound  in  heaven.  But,  as  it  was 
fit — even  though  something  in  common  was  spoken  of  Peter, 


230  THE  PRIMACY  OF  ST.  PETEB. 

and  of  those  who  should  thrice  admonish  the  brethren — that 
Peter  should  have  something  peculiar  above  those  who  should 
thrice  admonish,  this  was  previously  ordained  separately  re- 
specting Peter;  thus,  I  will  give  to  thee  the  keys  of  the  kingdom 
of  heaven,  before  (it  was  said)  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  bind 
on  earth,  and  what  follows  /  and  truly,  if  we  solemnly  attend 
to  the  evangelical  writings,  even  in  them  we  may  discover — 
with  regard  even  to  those  things  which  seem  to  be  common  to 
Peter  and  to  those  who  have  thrice  admonished  the  brethren — 
much  difference  and  pre-eminence  in  the  words  spoken  to  Peter, 
beyond  those  spoken  to  in  the  second  place."  (T.  iii.  in  Matt., 
Tom.  xiii.,  n.  31.) 

Origen  evidently  considers  the  giving  of  the  keys  to  Peter, 
before  our  Lord  had  said  "  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  bind," 
&c.,  gave  him  a  pre-eminence  over  the  others — that  the  power 
to  bind  was  the  power  to  expel  from  the  church,  a  member 
who  had  been  admonished  and  who  refused  to  submit. 

St.  Cyprian.  "  Peter,  on  whom  the  church  had  been  built 
by  the  Lord  himself,  one  speaking  for  all,  and  replying  with  the 
voice  of  the  church,  says,  Lord  to  whom  shall  we  go  ?  "  (Ep, 
Ix.  ad  Carnol.) 


CHAPTER  VI. 

HAS  GOD,   BY  MIRACLES,  ATTESTED  THE  FAITH  AND  SANC- 
TITY OF  THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH  ? 

§  1.  Preparatory  remarks. 

As  the  whole  system  of  Christianity  is  founded  on  miracles, 
it  must  be  conceded  by  every  Christian,  that  the  same  power 
to  perform  miracles  is  now  possessed  by  the  Almighty,  as  in 
the  days  of  the  apostles ;  and  that  consequently  a  miracle,  in  its 
nature,  is  still  a  miracle,  whether  performed  in  this  or  that  age, 
how,  when,  or  where.  It  must  also  be  obvious  to  him  who  re- 
flects, that  one  kind  of  miracle  is  just  as  easily  performed  by 
God  as  another — that  the  least  miracle  in  the  eyes  of  men,  is 
as  great  in  the  eye  of  God,  as  the  most  stupendous  displays  of 
His  power,  as  estimated  by  us.  It  is  just  as  easy  for  God  to 
raise  a  dead  man  to  life,  as  to  resuscitate  a  dead  fly :  and  both 
are  equally  impossible  with  man.  A  miracle,  then,  in  its  nature, 
is  not  more  surprising,  because  it  happens  to-day,  than  would 
be  a  miracle  that  occurred  a  thousand  years  ago.  They  are 
still  miracles ;  and  as  such,  are  surprising  and  wonderful  events. 

The  question  asked  at  the  head  of  this  chapter,  from  the 
very  nature  of  the  case,  demands  a  careful  consideration. 

It  is  of  the  utmost  importance,  as  showing  one  of  two 
very  great  results:  either  that  miracles  still  continue  in  the 
Church,  or  that  the  Church  makes  the  most  unfounded  and  ar- 
rogant claim  to  that  which  she  does  not  possess,  and  supports 
this  false  claim  by  the  greatest  mass  of  unlimited  fraud  ever 
found  among  mankind  ;  and  especially  among  civilized  men. 


232  MIRACLES. 

For  it  may  be  said  with  truth,  to  be  wholly  unparalleled  for  its 
extent,  duration,  and  character,  in  the  annals  of  the  world.  It 
is,  then,  deeply  interesting  to  the  Christian,  and  to  the  philoso- 
pher. For  the  result  of  such  an  investigation  must  satisfy  the 
candid  and  unprejudiced  inquirer,  either  that  God  has  performed 
miracles  as  claimed  by  the  Catholic  Church,  or  that  man  is  a 
creature  possessing  a  wonderful  capacity  to  delude  and  be  de- 
luded, while  he  possesses  but  few  powers  of  resistance,  to  pro- 
tect himself  from  imposition.  The  result  of  such  investigation 
must  teach  the  patient  inquirer  a  great  lesson  of  faith,  or  a 
great  lesson  concerning  human  nature. 

In  prosecuting  such  an  inquiry,  it  is  necessary  to  make  our- 
selves acquainted  with  the  grounds  taken  by  Infidels,  Protest- 
ants, and  Catholics.  When  we  do  this,  we  can  then  see  clearly 
the  main  leading  features  of  all,  wherein  they  all  differ,  and 
whether  these  respective  grounds  agree  in  any  thing,  or  whether 
any  two  of  them  have  any  affinity  in  essence  and  substance. 

§  2.  The  theory  of  the  Infidel. 

Those  results  legitimately  flowing  from  the  existing  consti- 
tution of  nature,  the  Infidel  admits.  All  alleged  special  inter- 
positions of  Providence,  in  violation  of  the  established  order  of 
nature,  he  rejects. 

In  support  of  these  opinions,  the  most  celebrated  and  acute 
of  the  English  Infidels,  David  Hume,  has  assumed  this  compre- 
hensive position : 

"  A  miracle,"  he  says,  "  is  the  violation  of  the  laws  of  na- 
ture ;  and  as  a  firm  and  unalterable  experience  has  established 
these  laws,  the  proof  against  a  miracle,  from  the  very  nature  of 
the  fact,  is  as  entire  as  any  argument  from  experience  can  pos- 
sibly be  imagined." 

The  language  of  this  proposition,  if  taken  in  its  strict  literal 
sense,  is  stronger,  perhaps,  than  Mr.  Hume  intended,  and  does 
not  convey  his  idea  clearly.  The  assumption,  as  stated,  that  a 
"firm  and  unalterable  experience  has  established  "  the  laws  of 
nature,  is  too  broad,  if  taken  strictly,  for  the  reason  that  it  illogi- 
cally  assumes  the  falsehood  of  the  question  in  debate  without 
proof.  His  position,  in  effect,  would  then  stand  thus:  "  A  mir- 
acle is  the  violation  of  the  laws  of  nature,  and  therefore,  no 


MIRACLES.  233 

man  has  over  witnessed  it."  It  assumes,  in  substance,  that  a 
miracle  is  impossible,  and  of  course  it  never  happened. 

He  who  takes  the  position  that  a  miracle  is  impossible,  must 
assume  one  of  two  things  to  be  true ;  either,  1.  That  there  is 
no  Creator ;  or  2.  That,  admitting  the  existence  of  such  a  Cre- 
ator, in  creating  the  world  and  giving  to  it  and  its  inhabitants 
certain  properties  and  laws,  lie  resolved  in  advance,  never,  for 
any  purpose,  on  any  occasion,  to  interfere,  in  any  manner,  with 
the  legitimate  effeets  of  this  order.  And  in  assuming  the  first 
position,  to  avoid  the  possibility  of  any  violation  of  this  order, 
the  party  must  also  assume  the  eternal  existence  of  this  order 
of  nature ;  for  if  it  be  the  result  of  chance  at  any  time,  this  same 
chance  may  certainly  undo  what  it  had  done.  If  mere  chance 
could  possibly  originate  a  system  of  any  kind,  surely  it  could 
modify  or  destroy.  And  the  same  may  be  said  of  God.  If  He 
created,  He  surely  can  modify,  destroy,  or  suspend,  unless  He 
has  resolved  not  to  do  so.  If  the  second  position  be  assumed, 
that  God  has  resolved,  in  Himself,  not  to  interfere  with  the 
regular  operation  of  what  we  call  the  laws  of  nature,  it  being  an 
affirmative  proposition,  he  who  assumes,  must  prove  it. 

A  miracle,  abstractly  speaking,  is  a  violation  of  the  laws  of 
nature ;  but  a  miracle  known  to  us,  as  such,  must,  in  general, 
be  a  violation  of  the  known  laws  of  nature.  The  exception  to 
this  rule,  is  when  we  are  assured  by  an  inspired  person,  (whose 
inspiration  is  first  proven,)  that  a  particular  matter  is  a  miracle 
which  we  could  not  know  to  be  such,  from  any  knowledge  of 
our  own. 

It  occurs  to  me  as  clear,  that  although  our  knowledge  of  the 
laws  of  nature  may  be  limited,  and,  therefore,  not  include  a 
knowledge  of  all ;  yet  we  have  a  certain  and  positive  knowledge 
of  some  of  these  laws,  or  we  have  no  certain  knowledge  of  any 
thing.  If  we  have  a  certain  and  positive  knowledge  of  the  ope- 
ration and  effect  of  the  more  familiar  laws  of  nature,  under  a 
given  state  of  circumstances,  then  we  can  determine,  with  cer- 
tainty, when  a  sensible  violation  of  these  known  laws  of  nature, 
occurs  under  the  same  circumstances.  There  is,  therefore,  a 
plain  distinction  between  an  event  merely  new,  and  one  directly 
in  violation  of  a  known  law  of  nature.  A  miracle  may  not  be 
new  in  its  kind,  because  a  like  miracle  may  have  occurred  be 


234  MIBACLE8. 

fore,  and  may  occur  again.  But  I  do  not  understand  Mr.  Hume 
as  intending  to  assert  that  miracles  are  impossible.  His  objec- 
tion lies  against  the  competency  of  the  testimony  offered.  I  un- 
derstand him  as  assuming,  substantially,  that,  as  a  miracle  is  a 
violation  of  the  laws  of  nature, — and  as  the  general  uniform  op- 
eration  of  those  laws  has  been  proven  by  general  experience,  the 
proof  against  a  miracle  is  "  as  entire  as  any  argument  drawn 
from  experience."  But  does  he  intend  to  maintain  that  an  ar- 
gument, drawn  from  experience,  is  conclusive,  and  not,  there- 
fore, to  be  rebutted  ?  or  only  prima  facie  true,  and  therefore, 
liable  to  be  overcome  by  competent  and  sufficient  testimony  ? 

Although  the  strong  language  he  uses,  (that  a  firm  and  un- 
alterable experience  had  established  these  laws  of  nature,  and 
that  the  argument  drawn  from  them  is  entire,)  will  bear  the 
construction  often  given  to  his  words ;  yet  his  illustrations, 
taken  in  connection  with  the  statement  of  his  general  proposi- 
tion, seem  to  show  a  different  intent,  and  that  it  was  not  his 
purpose  to  assume  an  argument  drawn  from  experience  to  be 
conclusive.  When  a  writer  is  ambiguous,  and  his  language  may 
be  construed  in  different  ways,  the  honest  and  generous  rule, 
is  to  give  his  language  that  construction  which  will  best  support 
the  general  scope  and  intent  of  his  argument.  Mr.  Hume,  then, 
as  I  understand  him,  intended  to  assume  this  ground  :  that  the 
proof  against  miracles,  drawn  from  experience,  is  prima  facie 
true  /  and  that  the  testimony  of  men  is  not  competent  to  re  but 
this  presumption. 

If,  then,  a  miracle  be  possible,  it  may  have  occurred ;  and  if 
so,  it  surely  may  be  proved,  in  some  way.  The  existence  and 
operation  of  these  laws  are  proven  by  human  testimony,  founded 
upon  human  experience ;  and  if  this  evidence  is  competent  to 
prove  the  existence  and  operation  of  a  certain  law  of  nature, 
cannot  the  same  class  of  testimony  establish  the  fact  of  its  vio- 
lation ?  It  would  seem  that  the  same  character  of  testimony, 
given  by  the  same  beings,  would  be  competent  for  both  pur- 
poses. As  a  miracle  is  possible,  and  may  have  happened,  we 
will  suppose,  for  the  sake  of  the  argument  only,  that  it  has  oc- 
curred. How,  then,  would  Mr.  Hume  have  proven  it,  under 
his  theory  ?  To  say  that  a  visible  and  palpable  fact  may  exist 
and  be  known  to  men,  and  yet  to  say  that  reason  and  philoso- 


MIRACLES.  235 

phy  deny  all  competent  evidence  of  such  a  fact,  is  to  degrade 
reason  and  philosophy,  and  would  seem  to  be  manifestly  erro- 
neous. 

If  it  be  said,  that  the  testimony  of  all  mankind  has  proven 
the  existence  and  effects  of  the  known  laws  of  nature,  and  that 
the  testimony  of  only  the  few  goes  to  sustain  the  existence  of 
miracles — and  as  the  testimony  of  the  few,  is  in  necessary  and 
direct  conflict  with  the  testimony  of  the  many;  therefore,  we 
must  believe  the  many,  and  disbelieve  the  few,  for  we  must  dis- 
believe one  or  the  other,  I  reply:  that  although  we  are  not 
compelled  to  believe  the  many,  and  disbelieve  the  few  in  all 
cases ;  still,  in  this  case,  the  argument  would  be  conclusive,  if  it 
were  true,  that  the  testimony  of  the  few,  from  the  nature  of  the 
case,  was  in  necessary  conflict  with  the  testimony  of  the  many. 
But  is  this  necessarily  so  ?  Before  we  can  say  there  must,  of 
necessity,  be  a  conflict  of  testimony  in  such  a  case,  we  are  com- 
pelled to  assume  that  miracles  are  impossible ;  for  if  possible, 
they  may  have  occurred,  and  if  they  did  occur,  they  can  be 
proved,%and  if  proved,  the  witnesses  are  certainly  not  in  conflict 
with  any  other  true  witnesses.  Upon  the  hypothesis  that  mira- 
cles may  have  existed,  and,  therefore,  may  bo  susceptible  of 
proof,  there  can  be  no  necessary  contradiction  in  the  two  classes 
of  witnesses.  One  class  proves  the  general  rule,  the  other  the 
exception.  And  when  Mr.  Hume  gives  as  a  reason,  in  sub- 
stance, that  experience  has  proven  the  general  uniform  opera- 
tion of  the  laws  of  nature,  and  the  same  experience  has  aiso 
shown  that  men  will  sometimes  lie ;  therefore,  it  is  more  rea- 
sonable to  believe  that  men  lie  in  regard  to  miracles,  than  that 
these  laws  have  been  violated,  I  am  constrained  to  say,  that  he 
overlooks  the  fact,  that  God  coald  only  make  a  revelation  to 
mankind  through  miracles — that  the  probabilities  and  reasons 
why  miracles  should  sometimes  occur,  ar*e  as  great,  if  not 
greater,  than  those  against  them.  For,  without  going  into  the 
subject  at  large,  it  occurs  to  me  as  the  genuine  dictate  of  pure 
reason — that  as  the  properties  infused  into  matter,  and  the  in- 
stincts given  unreasoning  animals,  are  so  different  from  the  laws 
enacted  for  the  government  of  rational  free  agents,  they  must 
be  communicated  in  a  different  manner ;  and  while  the  effects 
of  properties  and  instincts  would  be  uniform,  and,  for  that  rea- 


236  MIRACLES. 

son,  not  require  any  new  and  additional  interference,  the  effects 
of  free  agency  would  be  variable,  (though  still  confined  within 
the  limited  powers  of  the  rational  creature,)  and,  for  that  rea- 
son, would  require  the  special  interposition  of  the  Creator  at 
some  period  or  other,  and,  perhaps,  at  different  periods.  Mr. 
Hume  also  overlooks  the  fact,  that,  although  experience  has 
shown  that  some  men  will  lie,  under  the  influence  of  certain 
motives,  others  will  not  under  any  known  temptation ;  and  that 
human  testimony,  for  that  reason,  may  be  credible  to  the  high- 
est degree  of  moral  certainty.  I  believe  that  London  exists, 
and  I  believe  it  with  the  same  certainty  that  I  do  any  other  of 
the  most  certain  facts.  This  I  believe  purely  upon  human  tes- 
timony. Now  why  should  I  adopt  an  arbitrary  rule,  and  say 
that  a  miracle  may  occur,  but  there  can  be  no  testimony  to 
prove  it  ?  Did  the  laws  of  any  country  ever  admit  the  possible 
existence  of  important  facts,  and  yet  propose  to  reject  all  testi- 
mony to  prove  them  ?  The  facts  had  as  well  not  exist  at  all. 

Mr.  Hume  seems  to  have  become  so  sensible  of  the  arbitrary 
and  sweeping  nature  of  his  general  position,  that  he  puts  in  this 
limitation. 

"  I  beg,"  he  says,  "  the  limitations  here  made  may  be  re- 
marked, when  I  say  that  a  miracle  can  never  be  proved  so  as  to 
be  the  foundation  of  a  system  of  religion  ;  for  I  own  that  other- 
wise there  may  possibly  be  miracles  or  violations  of  the  usual 
course  of  nature  of  such  a  kind  as  to  admit  of  proof  from  hu- 
man testimony." 

Upon  which  the  profound  Starkie  has  these  remarks  : 

"  In  what  way  the  use  to  be  made  of  a  fact  when  proved,  can 
affect  the  validity  of  the  proof;  or  how  it  can  be  that  a  fact 
proved  to  be  true,  is  not  true  for  all  purposes  to  which  it  is  rele- 
vant, I  pretend  not  to  understand."  (1  Starkie  on  Ev.) 

And  Mr.  Starkie  is  surely  right.  This  limitation  of  Mr. 
Hume  cuts  up  his  general  position  by  the  roots.  All  that  he 
had  before  said  about  "  a  firm  and  unalterable  experience,"  and 
the  "  entire  "  argument  drawn  from  it  against  miracles,  is  at 
once  unsaid  by  admitting  that  a  miracle  may  exist,  and  may  be 
proved  by  human  testimony.  His  limitation  is  like  a  proviso 
repugnant  to  the  purview  of  the  statute  itself;  as  if  a  statute 


MIRACLES.  237 

granted  a  piece  of  land  to  A,  provided  such  person  does  not 
exist. 

The  candor  and  manliness  of  Mr.  Hume  must  be  conceded, 
because  he  conceals  none  of  the  consequences  of  his  theory,  but 
lets  us  know  distinctly  the  reasons  which  impel  him  to  adopt  his 
arbitrary  rule  for  the  exclusion  of  human  testimony.  He  recom- 
mends his  readers  "  to  form  a  general  resolution  never  to  lend 
any  attention  to  the  testimony,  (for  miracles  in  favor  of  religion,) 
with  whatever  specious  pretext  it  may  be  covered."  The  rea- 
son he  gives  is  because  "  those  who  are  so  silly  as  to  examine 
the  affair  by  that  medium,  and  seek  particular  flaws  in  the  testi- 
mony, are  almost  sure  to  be  confounded."  (Cited  2  Hay  on 
Miracles,  196.) 

The  extent  of  this  concession  is  certainly  very  great.  How 
distressed  must  be  the  condition  of  that  reasoner,  who,  to  sus- 
tain his  position,  is  compelled  to  shut  out  all  proof!  But  it 
must  be  conceded  that  this  system  is  effectual.  It  is  as  much  so 
as  the  maxim  of  pirates,  that  "  dead  men  tell  no  tales."  Mr. 
Hume  does  not  kill  the  witnesses.  He  only  closes  their  mouths 
by  refusing  to  hear  them.  His  means  of  suppressing  testimony 
may  be  more  merciful,  but  fully  as  arbitrary  and  irrational. 

The  best  result  of  my  reason  and  reflection  is  this — that  a 
miracle  is  possible,  and,  therefore,  not  incredible — that  the  ques- 
tion whether  a  particular  miraculous  event  occurred,  is  purely  a 
question  of  fact,  to  be  established  by  testimony — that  to  prove 
an  event  contrary  to  the  order  of  nature,  requires  more  testi- 
mony, or  stronger  proof,  than  to  establish  an  ordinary  event ; 
because  it  requires  a  greater  weight  of  testimony  to  rebut  and 
overcome  the  prima  facie  presumption  against  miracles,  than  to 
establish  a  general  case,  in  the  first  instance.  He  who  assumes 
to  overcome  a  prima  facie  presumption  against  him,  must  ne^ 
cessarily  bring  a  greater  amount  of  proof  than  he  would  be  re- 
quired to  produce,  if  no  such  presumption  stood  in  his  way. 

§  3.  Protestant  theories. 

The  views  of  Protestants  on  this  subject,  as  on  many  others, 
have  undergone  great  changes.  Protestant  writers  generally, 
if  not  entirely,  up  to  the  period  of  the  publication  of  Dr.  Middle- 
ton's  flippant  "  Free  Enquiry,"  admitted  the  existence  of  mira* 


238  MIRACLES. 

cles  after  the  days  of  the  apostles.  They  disagreed  as  to  the 
period  of  their  cessation,  some  bringing  it  down  as  late  as  the 
fifth  century.  In  attempting  to  fix  this  period,  these  writers 
were  involved  in  great  perplexity.  Dr.  Middleton,  therefore, 
assumed  the  hold  ground  that  miracles  ceased  with  the  apostles. 
Most  Protestant  writers  since  that  period  have  followed  Middle- 
ton,  so  far  as  I  am  advised.  This  is  now  the  more  general  Prot- 
estant theory  on  the  subject. 

This  ground,  like  that  of  an  invisible  true  Church,  avoids 
old,  but  gives  rise  to  many  new  difficulties.  Those  who  assume 
this  ground  must  necessarily  give  some  criterion,  by  the  aid  of 
which  we  may  distinguish  between  the  miracles  of  the  apostolic 
day,  and  those  alleged  to  have  happened  since.  The  Bishop  of 
Salisbury,  Dr.  John  Douglass,  published  a  treatise  upon  the  sub- 
ject, entitled  u  The  Criterion,  or  Rules  by  which  the  true  mira- 
cles of  the  New  Testament  are  distinguished  from  the  spurious 
miracles  of  Pagans  and  Papists,  by  John  Douglass,  D.  D.,  Lord 
Bishop  of  Salisbury."  After  this  the  celebrated  Dr.  Paley  pub- 
lished his  "  View  of  the  Evidences  of  Christianity,"  in  which  he 
cites  Dr.  Douglass  frequently,  as  authority.  The  treatise  of  Dr. 
Douglass  I  have  not  access  to.  I  shall,  therefore,  confine  my 
attention  mostly  to  the  views  of  Dr.  Paley. 

In  a  professed  treatise  upon  the  evidences  of  Christianity,  by 
a  Protestant,  it  was  necessary  and  proper  to  lay  down  the  marks 
that  are  alleged  to  distinguish  the  true  miracles  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament from  the  alleged  false  Popish  miracles,  so  called.  In  the 
outset,  the  learned  Divine  lays  down  these  propositions  : 

"  I.  That  there  is  satisfactory  evidence  that  many  professing 
to  be  original  witnesses  of  the  Christian  miracles,  passed  their 
lives  in  labors,  dangers,  and  suffe rings,  voluntarily  undergone, 
in  attestation  of  the  accounts  which  they  delivered,  and  solely 
in  consequence  of  their  belief  of  those  accounts;  and  that  they 
also  submitted,  from  the  same  motives,  to  new  rules  of  conduct. 

"  II.  That  there  is  not  satisfactory  evidence  that  persons  pro- 
fessing to  be  original  witnesses  of  other  miracles,  in  their  nature 
as  certain  as  these  are,  have  ever  acted  in  the  same  manner  in 
attestation  of  the  accounts  which  they  delivered,  and  properly 
in  consequence  of  their  belief  of  those  accounts." 

It  will  readily  appear  that  these  two  propositions  regard  the 


MIRACLES.  239 

competency  of  witnesses.  They  do  not  regard  the  sufficiency  of 
the  testimony  itself.  In  their  terms  they  are  confined  solely  to 
the  competency  of  the  witnesses.  The  distinction  between  the 
competency  of  a  witness,  and  the  sufficiency  of  the  testimony,  is 
a  very  plain  one.  Competency  regards  the  witness,  while  sul- 
Bciency  regards  the  testimony.  If  a  witness  be  incompetent,  he 
cannot  be  heard — his  testimony  is  not  to  be  considered.  If  he 
is  competent,  he  will  be  heard ;  but  the  testimony  he  gives  may 
be  sufficient  or  insufficient  to  prove  the  truth  of  the  allegation. 
The  facts  proven  by  a  competent  witness  may  not  be  sufficient 
to  prove  the  proposition  sought  to  be  established,  for  this  rea- 
son, they  may  not  possess  the  power  of  proof  required. 

The  requisites  to  constitute  the  competency  of  an  original 
witness  of  a  miracle,  as  laid  down  by  Dr.  Paley  in  his  first  pro- 
position, are  distinctly  these : 

1.  He  must  have  "  voluntarily  passed  his  life  in  labors,  dan- 
gers, and  sufferings." 

2.  These  must  have  been  undergone  in  attestation  of  the  ac- 
counts which  he  delivered,  and  solely  in  consequence  of  his  belief 
of  these  accounts. 

3.  That  the  witness  submitted,  from  the  same  motives,  to 
new  rules  of  conduct. 

It  is  clear  that  the  witness  to  be  competent,  under  this  rule, 
must  possess  all  and  each  of  the  requisites  laid  down.  If  he 
lacks  any  one  single  requisite,  he  cannot  be  heard.  This  is  con- 
clusively shown  by  the  terms  of  the  second  proposition,  which 
rejects  the  testimony  of  witnesses  not  possessing  the  same  re- 
quisites. 

I  shall  examine  these  requisites  separately. 

The  first  requisite  excludes  all  persons,  however  honest  and 
reliable,  numerous  and  sincere,  unless  they  have  voluntarily 
passed  their  lives  in  labors,  dangers,  and  sufferings.  If,  then,  the 
witness  happen  to  live  in  an  age  and  country  where  no  persecu- 
tion exists,  he  could  not  testify ;  for  the  dangers  and  sufferings 
intended  by  the  learned  Divine  are  not  those  ordinarily  incident 
to  human  life,  but  those  additional  ones  incurred  in  attesting 
the  truth  of  the  miracle  itself.  This  seems  conclusively  shown 
by  his  arguments  in  support  of  his  first  proposition,  as  well  as 
by  the  proposition  itself.  If,  then,  a  miracle  should  happen  in  a 


240  MIRACLES. 

country  where  no  one  would  persecute  the  witnesses,  and  where 
they  could  not  incur  the  perils  mentioned,  how  could  such  a 
fact  be  proven  under  such  a  theory  ?  It  is  of  no  concern  what 
the  number  and  character  of  the  witnesses  may  be,  this  arbitrary 
requisite  excludes  them  all. 

The  second  requisite  is  still  more  exclusive.  These  labors, 
dangers  and  sufferings  must  have  been  undergone  in  attestation 
of  the  accounts  which  the  witness  delivers. 

It  would  seem  not  quite  correct  to  say,  that  the  apostles  en- 
dured the  sufferings  and  incurred  the  dangers,  in  attestation  of 
the  facts  they  proved.  It  is  more  proper  to  say,  that  they  su£ 
fered,  not  alone  because  of  their  attestation,  but  also  because 
they  believed  and  taught  the  system  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  For 
instance,  Peter  and  John  were  arrested,  after  healing  the  crip- 
ple, as  stated  in  the  third  and  fourth  chapters  of  Acts,  because 
the  priests,  and  the  captain  of  the  temple,  and  the  Sadducees, 
were  "grieved  that  they  taught  the  people,  and  preached 
through  Jesus  the  resurrection  from  the  dead."  And  when 
they  were  examined  and  discharged  they  were  "  commanded 
not  to  speak  at  all  nor  teach  in  the  name  of  Jesus."  It  was  not 
the  simple  fact  alone,  that  they  gave  their  testimony  to  the 
miracles  of  Christ,  that  brought  upon  them  the  sufferings  and 
dangers.  The  Jews  themselves  attested  the  miracles  of  Christ, 
but  said  they  were  performed  by  the  aid  of  Beelzebub,  and 
they  also  conceded  the  miracle  performed  by  Peter.  But  the 
Jews  did  not  draw  the  same  conclusions  from  the  facts  admit- 
ted. Had  the  apostles  simply  said,  "  We  saw  the  miracles  per- 
formed by  Christ — we  saw  Him  after  He  had  risen  from  the 
dead — we  are  compelled  to  state  these  facts  when  asked  con- 
cerning them,  but  we  do  not  pretend  to  know  by  what  power 
these  were  performed — we  draw  no  conclusions  from  what  we 
saw  and  heard — we  found  no  religion  upon  that  basis ;  "  it  is 
apprehended  that  no  persecution  would  have  followed.  Those 
Christians  who  were  not  the  original  witnesses  of  Christ's  mira- 
cles, were  also  persecuted.  In  fact,  all  who  believed  the  system, 
and  openly  professed  it,  were  persecuted.  The  apostles  were 
more  persecuted  than  others,  because  they  were  the  first  teach- 
ers, and  claimed  to  have  been  commissioned  by  Christ  Himself. 

But  the  second  branch  of  the  second  requisite,  is  by  far  the 


MIRACLES.  241 

most  important.  This  branch  requires  these  voluntary  dangers 
and  sufferings  to  have  been  undergone  "  solely  in  consequence 
of  the  belief"  of  the  witness  in  the  testimony  he  gives.  The 
witness  must  not  only  undergo  the  sufferings  and  incur  the 
dangers,  but  this  must  be  done  from  one  motive  only,  i.  e.,  the 
belief  of  the  particular  facts  related  by  him,  as  an  original  wit- 
ness. This  is  to  be  his  sole  motive.  If,  then,  the  witness  be  a 
Christian  before  he  saw  the  miracle,  he  cannot  testify,  unless  he 
ceased  to  be  such,  and  "  submitted  to  new  rules  of  conduct." 
In  other  words,  if  his  belief  of  the  miracle  changed  his  belief  of 
Christianity,  and  he,  therefore,  submitted  to  new  rules  of  con- 
-  duct,  he  could  be  a  witness  under  Dr.  Paley's  rule  of  evidence. 
But  if  he  remained  a  Christian,  of  course  his  mouth  must  be 
closed.  And  this  result  is  not  only  clear  from  the  proposition 
itself,  but  it  is  distinctly  stated  and  insisted  on,  in  considering 
the  second  proposition. 

The  learned  Divine,  when  he  comes  to  consider  his  second 
proposition,  makes  two  distinctions :  "  those  relating  to  tho 
proof,  and  those  which  relate  to  the  miracles."  Under  the  first 
division  relative  to  the  proof,  he  lays  out  several  classes  of  cases 
excluded  by  his  first  proposition,  and  his  seventh  class  he  gives 
in  these  words :  "  We  have  laid  out  of  the  case,  those  accounts 
which  require  no  more  than  a  simple  assent ;  and  we  now  also 
lay  out  of  the  case  those  which  come  merely  in  affirmance  of 
opinions  already  formed.  This  last  circumstance  is  of  the  ut- 
most importance  to  notice  well."  What  an  emphasis  the  learned 
Divine  lays  upon  "  this  last  circumstance  "  ! 

After  further  remarks  in  reference  to  this  class  of  exclusion, 
the  learned  author  says :  "  No  part  of  this  description  belongs 
to  the  ordinary  evidence  of  Heathen  or  Popish  miracles.  Even 
most  of  the  miracles  alleged  to  have  been  performed  by  Chris- 
tians, in  the  second  and  third  century  of  its  era,  want  this  con- 
firmation. It  constitutes  indeed  a  line  of  partition  between  the 
origin  and  the  progress  of  Christianity."  If,  therefore,  a  man 
be  a  Christian  before  he  witnessed  the  miracle  in  favor  of  Chris- 
tianity, he  cannot  be  a  competent  witness  under  this  rule,  al- 
though he  undergo  the  sufferings  and  dangers ;  because,  as  the 
Dr.  says,  "  men  may  not  only  receive  a  miraculous  account,  but 
may  both  act  and  suffer  on  the  side  and  in  the  cause,  which  the 
22 


24:2  MIRACLES. 

miracle  supports,  yet  not  act  or  suffer  for  ihe  miracle,  but  in 
pursuance  of  a  prior  persuasion."  May  not  suffer  for  the  par- 
ticular miracle,  but  in  pursuance  of  a  prior  persuasion ! ! 

That  the  learned  Divine  intended  his  two  propositions  as 
fixing  the  competency  of  witnesses,  is  still  further  shown  by  his 
subsequent  remarks.  As  we  have  already  seen,  that,  in  treating 
his  second  proposition,  he  lays  out  two  classes  excluded  by  the 
first,  and  embraced  under  the  second,  proposition  ;  namely : 
those  relating  to  the  proof,  and  those  relating  to  the  miracles 
themselves.  In  laying  out  the  cases  embraced  under  his  second 
proposition,  there  is  but  one  chapter  employed ;  and  after  lay- 
ing out  the  cases  mentioned  by  him,  both  as  to  the  proof  and 
the  miracles  themselves,  he  closes  the  chapter  with  these  re- 
marks : 

"  I  apprehend  that,  when  we  remove  from  the  comparison, 
the  cases  which  are  fairly  disposed  of  by  the  observations  that 
have  been  stated,  many  cases  will  not  remain.  To  those  which 
do  remain  we  apply  this  final  distinction  :  that  there  is  not  sat- 
isfactory evidence  that  persons  pretending  to  be  original  wit- 
nesses of  the  miracles,  passed  their  lives  in  labors,  dangers,  and 
sufferings,  voluntarily  undertaken  and  undergone  in  attestation 
of  the  accounts  which  they  delivered,  and  properly  in  conse- 
quence of  their  belief  of  the  truth  of  those  accounts." 

And  surely  the  learned  Divine  was  right  in  his  opinion,  that 
if  he  had  erred  in  his  enumeration  of  the  different  classes  of  cases 
excluded  by  his  first,  and  embraced  by  his  second,  sweeping 
reposition,  that  a  mere  repetition  of  his  second  proposition 
itself,  would  most  effectually  settle  all  those  cases  he  might  have 
omitted.  And  after  having  placed  all  Christian  witnesses  to 
miracles  occurring  in  the  progress  of  Christianity,  in  such  a  po- 
sition that  they  could  not  possibly  possess  the  requisites  of  com- 
petency he  lays  down,  he  may  well  and  safely  say,  "  there  is 
no  satisfactory  evidence  "  that  they  did  possess  these  impossible 
requisites. 

The  third  requisite  excludes  all  those  original  witnesses  to 
miracles,  who  did  not,  from  a  simple  belief  of  the  particular 
miracles  they  saw,  "submit  to  new  rules  of  conduct."  If, 
therefore,  the  miracle  were  performed  in  affirmance  of  Chris- 
tianity, and  the  witness  was  a  Christian  at  the  time  he  saw  it, 


MIRACLES.  243 

of  course  he  could  not  testify  to  the  fact  he  saw,  if  he  remained 
a  Christian. 

The  essence  of  Dr.  Paley's  two  propositions,  when  taken  and 
considered  together,  is  this :  that  no  persons  (however  numerous, 
honest,  and  reliable  they  may  have  been)  who  were  Christians 
at  the  time  they  saw  the  miracles  performed,  and  remained 
Christians  afterwards,  can  be  competent  witnesses  to  prove  the 
facts  they  saw. 

The  laws  of  every  civilized  country  require  testimony  to  be 
given  by  competent  witnesses.  Before  a  witness  can  speak,  he 
must  possess  the  requisites  to  constitute  competency.  So,  with 
Dr.  Paley.  He  puts  forth  certain  requisites  to  constitute  com- 
petency ;  and  these  requisites  are  of  such  a  character  that  it  is 
impossible  for  witnesses  who  lived  after  the  days  of  the  apostles 
to  possess  them. 

The  learned  Divine  was  bound,  from  the  nature  of  his  sub- 
ject, and  his  own  views  as  a  Protestant,  to  mark  the  dividing 
line  between  the  miracles  of  the  Scriptures,  and  those  not  re- 
corded therein.  As  he  disbelieved  the  alleged  Catholic  mira- 
cles, he  was  necessarily  obliged  to  adopt  some  rule  that  would 
effectually  exclude  them.  If,  therefore,  he  excluded  the  wit- 
nesses to  these  miracles,  and  would  not  permit  them  to  be 
heard,  as  a  matter  of  course,  these  alleged  miracles  could  not 
be  proved.  And  it  will  be  seen  by  the  attentive  inquirer,  how 
studiously  his  two  propositions  were  framed  to  accomplish  this 
result. 

And  it  must  be  conceded  that  his  rules  of  competency  wholly 
preclude  all  investigation.  Nothing  certainly  can  place  the  ad- 
vocates of  Catholic  miracles,  more  completely  at  fault.  There 
is  not  a  spot  of  earth  left  to  them,  upon  which  to  rest  the  soles 
of  their  feet.  They  are  only  allowed  room  for  their  graves. 
Their  witnesses  cannot  testify,  simply  because  they  were  Chris- 
tians, and  remained  true  to  the  faith.  They  are  incompetent 
witnesses,  because  they  did  right.  They  believed  before  they 
had  seen  ;  and  although  our  Lord  pronounced  such  blessed, 
they  are  still  to  be  rejected,  for  that  reason.  And  is  it  the  le- 
gitimate effect  of  Christianity  to  destroy  a  man's  integrity? 
Are  his  senses  prostrated  ?  Can  he  still  not  see  ? 

And  when  the  learned  author  says,  that  most  of  the  miracles 


244  MIRACLES. 

of  the  second  and  third  centuries,  were  given  in  affirmance  of  a 
religion  already  established,  he  does  not  mean  to  admit  that  a 
portion  of  them  may  be  proved.  "  This  description,"  he  says, 
"  constitutes,  indeed,  a  line  of  partition  between  the  origin  and 
progress  of  Christianity."  His  first  proposition  regards  "  Chris- 
tian Miracles ; "  and  his  second,  (which  embraces  all  those  ex- 
cluded by  the  first,)  includes  all  others.  And  "  Christian  Mira- 
cles "  are  only  those  found  in  the  Scriptures,  as  he  says,  in  the 
beginning  of  the  first  chapter,  that  "  Christ,  his  associates  and 
immediate  followers,  acted  the  part  which  the  first  proposition 
imputes  to  them ;  "  and  that  "  they  did  so  in  attestation  of  the 
miraculous  history  recorded  in  our  Scriptures,  and  solely  in 
consequence  of  the  belief  of  the  truth  of  this  history."  And  so, 
when  he  says  that  "no  part  of  this  description  belongs  to  the 
ordinary  evidence  of  Heathen  or  Popish  Miracles,"  he  does  not 
mean  to  say,  that  any  of  the  so-called  Popish  miracles  are  not 
rejected  by  his  first  proposition.  When  he  uses  these  expres- 
sions of  seeming  limited  meaning,  he  does  so  in  reference  to 
only  one  of  the  requisites  he  lays  down  ;  and  even  in  reference 
to  this,  we  cannot  well  see  how  any  witnesses  to  miracles,  alleged 
to  have  occurred  after  the  "  origin  of  Christianity,"  could  pos- 
sess that  requisite,  except  those  who  changed  their  faith  by 
ceasing  to  be  Christians. 

This  sweeping  rule  of  exclusion  is  very  much  like  the  as- 
sertion of  Bishop  Watson,  in  his  third  letter  in  reply  to  Mr. 
Gibbon.  "  We  see,"  says  he,  "  the  pretensions  of  the  Romish 
priesthood  to  miraculous  powers,  and  we  know  them  to  be 
false."  There  is  no  disputing  the  assertion  of  a  gentleman, 
when  he  says  he  knows  a  thing,  even  although  it  be  of  a  nega- 
tive, that  most  difficult  of  all  things  to  prove.  Dr.  Paley  does 
not  use  language  quite  so  strong.  He  does  not  say,  I  know 
the  alleged  Catholic  miracles  to  be  false,  but  "  I  deny  that  there 
can,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  be  any  competent  testimony  to 
prove  them." 

But  with  all  due  deference  for  the  logic  of  Dr.  Paley,  is  his 
rule  true  f  Does  he  mean  to  assume  that  miracles  in  affirmance 
of  Christianity  are  IMPOSSIBLE  ?  And  if  possible,  does  he  mean 
then  to  say,  that  there  could  be  no  competent  witnesses  to  prove 
such  miracles  ?  And  as  they  may  have  happened,  we  will  sup 


MIRACLES.  245 

pose  they  did  occur.  How  then,  under  the  Dr.'s  first  proposi- 
tion, can  they  be  proven  ?  It  is  impossible  for  the  witnesses  to 
possess  all  the  requisites  he  requires  in  an  original  witness  of 
miracles.  Under  his  rule  of  competency,  a  stupendous  fact  may 
exist,  and  which  was  performed  by  God  for  a  great  purpose ; 
yet  this  purpose  cannot  be  attained,  simply  because  those  who 
witnessed  the  fact,  were  then  believers  in  God  Almighty'1  s  truth. 
This  is  about  as  conclusive  as  the  position  of  the  Infidel,  who 
would  not  hear  any  proof  of  miracles  from  a  Christian,  because 
his  testimony  would  establish  his  own  system  •  and  he  would 
not  hear  any  from  an  unbeliever,  because  he  was  not  honest ; 
otherwise,  he  would  have  been  converted  by  the  miracle.  So, 
both  classes  of  witnesses  were  incompetent,  and  he  would  not 
hear  testimony  at  all. 

There  are  many  instances  where  miracles  were  performed 
during  "the  progress"  of  the  Old  Dispensation,  simply  "in 
affirmance "  of  truths  already  revealed.  (1  Kings  xviii.  xx. 
2  Kings  i.  Id.  xxiii.)  How  would  Dr.  Paley  dispose  of  such 
miracles  under  his  theory  ? 

And  are  not  the  respective  summary  positions  of  David 
Hume  and  Dr.  Paley,  based  essentially  upon  the  same  funda- 
mental ground  ?  Are  they  not  both  the  embodiment  of  the 
same  radical  error — distrust  of  human  veracity  ?  Are  they 
not  both  alike  arbitrary  ?  Are  they  not  both  partial  ?  Is 
not  the  effect  of  both  the  same — to  close  the  mouths  of  hon- 
est and  able  witnesses?  Do  they  not  both  exclude  all  in- 
vestigation  into  alleged  facts  conceded  to  be  possible  ?  What 
essential  difference  is  there  between  the  Infidel  and  the 
Protestant?  Mr.  Hume  had  so  little  confidence  in  human 
testimony,  that  he  would  not  receive  it  at  all  to  prove  a  mira- 
cle, "  so  as  to  be  the  foundation  of  a  system  of  religion  ;  "  and 
Dr.  Paley  has  so  little,  that  he  will  only  receive  the  testimony 
of  the  men  of  one  particular  generation,  and  for  one  purpose 
only.  The  only  difference  between  the  Infidel  and  the  Christian 
philosopher  is,  that  the  former  rejects  human  testimony  in  the 
origin,  and  the  latter  in  the  progress,  of  Christianity.  Mr. 
Hume  set  out  to  reject  Christianity,  and  Dr.  Paley  to  reject  the 
alleged  Catholic  miracles,  and  each  accomplished  the  end  in- 
tended with  about  equal  ability  and  success.  And  the  remark 


246  MIRACLES. 

of  the  learned  Starkie,  in  reference  to  Mr.  Hume's  position,  is 
equally  applicable  to  that  of  Dr.  Paley.  "  Estoppels,"  he  says, 
"  are  odious,  even  in  judicial  investigations,  because  they  tend 
to  exclude  the  truth ;  in  metaphysics  they  are  intolerable." 

But  the  reasoning  of  the  learned  Divine  in  support  of  this 
excluding  rule  regarding  witnesses,  is  based  upon  the  ground 
that  men  more  readily  receive  accounts  of  facts  which  go  to 
confirm  them  in  their  existing  opinions,  than  they  do  those 
which  require  them  to  change.  "  The  miracle,"  he  says,  "  like 
any  other  argument  which  only  confirms  what  was  before  be- 
lieved, is  admitted  with  little  examination.  In  the  moral,  as  in 
the  natural  world,  it  is  change  which  requires  a  cause." 

There  can  be  no  doubt  of  the  truth  of  such  a  general  princi- 
ple in  reference  to  the  mass  of  mankind.  But  there  are  circum- 
stances connected  with  the  first  witnesses,  that  must  be  taken 
into  the  account.  The  learned  author  says :  "  This  people, 
(the  Jews)  with  or  without  reason,  had  worked  themselves  into 
a  persuasion  that  some  signal  and  greatly  advantageous  change 
was  to  be  effected  in  the  condition  of  their  country,  by  the 
agency  of  a  long-promised  messenger  from  heaven."  Afterwards, 
in  speaking  of  the  belief  and  conduct  of  the  apostles  and  early 
Christians,  he  anticipates  an  objection,  and  answers  it  in  this  way : 

"  If  it  be  said  that  the  sure  promise  of  a  future  state  would 
do  all  this ;  I  answer,  that  the  sure  promise  of  a  future  state, 
without  any  evidence  to  give  credit  or  assurance  to  it,  would 
do  nothing.  A  few  wandering  fishermen  talking  of  a  resurrec- 
tion of  the  dead,  could  produce  no  effect.  If  it  be  farther  said, 
that  men  easily  believe  what  they  anxiously  desire  ;  I  again  an- 
swer, that  in  my  opinion,  the  very  contrary  of  this  is  nearer  to 
the  truth.  Anxiety  of  desire,  earnestness  of  expectation,  the 
vastness  of  an  event,  rather  cause  men  to  disbelieve,  to  doubt,  to 
dread  a  fallacy,  to  distrust,  to  examine.  When  our  Lord's  res- 
urrection was  first  reported  to  the  apostles  they  did  not  believe, 
we  are  told,  for  joy.  This  was  natural,  and  is  agreeable  to  ex- 
perience." 

That  the  Jews  expected  and  desired  the  advent  of  the  Mes- 
siah, there  can  be  no  doubt ;  and  that  the  time,  in  their  opinion, 
was  at  hand  when  Christ  appeared,  would  seem  equally  clear. 
Christ  came,  not  to  establish  an  entire  new  antagonistic  system, 


MIRACLES.  24:7 

but  to  fulfil  and  end  the  old  one,  and  also  to.  establish  the  new, 
in  pursuance  of  the  old  dispensation  itself.  His  miracles  were, 
therefore,  both  in  affirmance  of  the  old  system,  and  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  new.  The  difference  between  Christ  and  the 
Jews  regarded  not  the  fact  that  a  new  kingdom  should  be  set 
up,  but  the  character  of  this  new  kingdom,  and  the  identity  of 
its  founder. 

The  desire  of  immortality,  and  the  desire  for  the  advent  of 
Christ,  must  have  had  some  effect  upon  the  minds  of  men.  Dr. 
Paley  thinks  it  would  naturally  have  the  effect  to  make  them 
more  cautious.  I  cannot  quite  agree  with  him  in  the  form  in 
which  he  states  it.  My  observation  and  experience  lead  me  to 
a  modified  conclusion.  I  believe  the  desire  of  immortality 
would  predispose  the  great  majority  of  men,  to  a  certain  extent, 
to  believe  a  system  promising  what  they  wished.  In  other 
words,  I  think  the  desire  of  immortality  would  induce  the  ma- 
jority of  men  more  readily  to  believe  Christianity,  than  if  they 
did  not  desire  immortality  at  all.  So,  I  think  that  when  men 
desire  the  confirmation  of  their  existing  opinions,  that  such  de- 
sire would  influence  them  to  a  certain  extent. 

It  is  only  upon  the  ground  that  desire  will,  to  some  extent, 
predispose  men  to  believe  a  religion,  that  we  can  account  for 
the  fact  that  the  great  mass  of  mankind  have  believed  false  re- 
ligions without  sufficient  testimony. 

But  the  effects  of  this  desire  upon  the  majority  of  men,  in 
ooth  cases,  is  limited.  It  would  not  induce  men  blindly  to  re- 
ceive the  most  extraordinary  accounts  of  visible  miracles,  with- 
out competent  proof.  And  I  also  believe  that  while  desire  would 
have  the  effect  mentioned  upon  the  majority,  it  would  have  a 
contrary  effect  upon  the  minority — the  prudent  and  the  cau- 
tious. These  would  distrust  and  examine  more  carefully,  be- 
cause sensible  of  their  wish.  I  have  always  observed  such  to  be 
the  case  with  the  most  prudent  and  just  persons,  everywhere. 
That  the  vastness  of  an  event  such  as  a  miracle,  would  make  men 
more  cautious  than  they  would  be  in  reference  to  inferior  mat- 
ters, I  think  there  can  be  no  question ;  but  I  cannot  understand 
why  this  character  of  an  event  should  have  that  effect  more  at 
one  time  than  at  another.  The  Jews  were  just  as  well  prepared 
for  miracles  as  the  Christians  in  after  times.  They  had  the 


248  MIRACLES. 

miraculous  pool  with  them,  and  also  their  Scriptures,  which  were 
full  of  miraculous  accounts. 

But  the  learned  Divine  makes  a  distinction  between  the  ef- 
fect of  a  desire  to  acquire  something  new,  and  a  desire  to  preserve 
that  which  is  already  possessed,  and  he  assumes  that  the  effects, 
in  the  two  cases,  are  precisely  opposite.  When  the  Jews  de- 
sired immortality,  this  made  them  more  cautious  and  distrustful ; 
but  when  the  Christians,  in  after  times,  desired  the  same  thing, 
this  made  them  more  credulous.  When  the  Jews  desired  im- 
mortality, they  were  more  distrustful  of  the  ONLY  system  that 
promised  it  to  them ;  and  when  the  Christians  desired  the  con- 
firmation of  the  same  system,  this  rendered  them  credulous  and 
incautious.  The  desire  of  immortality  was  the  same  in  both 
Jew  and  Christian.  Now  I  cannot,  I  confess,  see  why,  if  the 
wish  was  father  to  the  thought  in  one  case,  it  was  not  equally 
so  in  the  other.  The  events  in  both  cases  are  equally  vast  and 
important. 

But  I  could  not  understand  how  all  this  could  affect  the  wit- 
nesses of  miracles.  The  desire  of  immortality  was  equally  strong 
in  the  witnesses  in  one  age  as  in  another.  Man  is  always  the 
same,  and  will  desire  the  same  good.  But  could  such  a  desire 
induce  the  witnesses  to  commit  perjury  ?  Could  they  be  so 
blinded  by  this  desire,  either  in  the  origin  or  progress  of  Chris- 
tianity, as  to  lose  the  use  of  their  senses  ?  I  should  think  not. 
And  conceding,  for  the  sake  of  the  argument  only,  that  men 
would  more  readily  believe  a  miraculous  account,  affirming  a 
system  promising  immortality,  than  they  would  the  same  ac- 
count, establishing  the  same  theory ;  still,  this  would  only  af- 
fect the  hearers,  and  not  the  witnesses.  It  would  only  show 
that  impositions  might  be  more  easy  in  one  case  than  in  the  other. 
But  this  could  not  affect  the  competency  of  the  testimony  itself. 
If,  then,  an  unbeliever  investigates  this  testimony,  the  relation 
he  sustains  to  the  testimony  establishing  the  first  miracles  of 
Christianity,  or  those  occurring  afterwards,  is  precisely  the  same. 
And  it  would  seem  it  should  be  so  with  the  Christian. 

As  to  the  competency  of  witnesses,  the  law  lays  down  the 
true  rule.  The  witness  must  be  both  able  and  willing  to  state 
the  truth.  He  must  know  the  facts,  to  be  able  ;  and  he  must 
be  honest,  to  be  willing. 


MIRACLES.  249 

In  reference  to  the  witnesses  of  miracles,  the  only  proper  in- 
quiry must  regard  these  two  points :  is  he  able  ?  is  he  willing  ? 
If  he  be  both  able  and  willing,  he  must  be  a  good  witness.  But 
to  prove  his  integrity,  Dr.  Paley  lays  down  certain  tests  that  no 
witness  can  possess,  except  those  who  lived  in  the  origin  of 
Christianity.  These  tests  are  local  and  partial,  and  confined, 
from  their  nature,  to  the  witnesses  of  the  first  miracles.  For  the 
sake  of  illustration,  I  will  suppose  two  witnesses,  the  first  a  wit- 
ness of  the  original  miracles,  the  second  a  witness  of  subsequent 
miracles.  If  they  are  both  equally  honest  and  able,  there  must 
be  some  means  to  show  this  in  both  cases.  If  not,  of  what 
avail  are  the  ability  and  integrity  of  the  second  witness  ?  The 
facts  to  be  proved  are,  in  both  cases,  miracles.  The  sufferings 
undergone  by  both  witnesses  for  Christianity,  we  will  suppose 
equally  great ;  for  the  Christians  in  the  ages  subsequent  to  that 
of  the  apostles  suffered  all  the  persecutions  they  did.  These 
two  witnesses,  then,  give  the  same  evidence  of  sincerity.  If  the 
first  witness  testify  falsely,  he  gains  no  immortality.  His  testi- 
mony only  establishes  a  false  system,  in  which  he  can  have  no 
interest  in  the  future,  and  he  incurs  punishment  in  the  present. 
If  the  second  witness  testify  falsely  to  affirm  the  system,  he  for- 
feits heaven,  and  has,  therefore,  no  more  interest  in  sustaining 
the  system  than  the  first  had  to  establish  it. 

And  were  I  going  to  lay  down  an  arbitrary  rule  for  the  ex- 
clusion of  witnesses  of  miracles,  I  would  exclude  the  first,  and 
admit  the  second,  for  these  reasons :  The  first  witness,  suppos- 
ing the  system  to  be  false,  knew  that  fact.  In  giving  his  testi- 
mony, he  could  not  be  influenced  by  any  hope  or  fear  of  the  fu- 
ture. All  he  would  have  to  dread  would  be  the  infliction  of 
punishment  in  this  life.  But  the  second  witness,  whether  the 
system  be  true  or  false,  would  give  his  testimony  under  the  fear 
of  future,  as  well  as  present  punishment,  and  the  loss  of  future 
reward.  The  second  witness  would  then  give  his  testimony  un- 
der three  tests  :  1.  The  fear  of  present  punishment ;  2.  The  fear 
of  future  punishment ;  and  3.  The  loss  of  a  happy  immortality  ; 
while  the  first  witness  would  give  his  evidence  only  under  one 
test,  the  fear  of  present  punishment. 

But  far  be  it  from  me  to  lay  down  any  such  test  of  the  com- 
petency of  witnesses  to  miracles.  Christ  has  laid  down  none 
23 


250  MIRACLES. 

such.  And  after  all  the  reflection  I  have  been  able  to  bestow 
upon  this  subject,  there  is  but  one  just  and  righteous  rule,  in 
my  opinion,  namely  :  is  the  witness  able  and  willing  f  And  as 
to  his  integrity,  that  may  be  shown,  either  by  sufferings,  ser- 
vices, pious  and  exemplary  conduct,  or  in  any  of  the  many  ways 
by  which  an  honest  man  may  prove  his  integrity,  and  establish 
his  character.  And  it  does  not  matter  what  his  particular  views 
may  be,  or  what  his  religion,  if  he  is  honest,  and  the  facts  he 
states  are  of  such  a  character  as  to  preclude  reasonable  ground 
for  mistake. 

But  this  sweeping  and  summary  position  of  Dr.  Paley  gives 
rise  to  very  serious  and  important  reflections. 

Is  it  possible  that  the  proofs  of  the  alleged  Catholic  miracles 
are  so  direct  and  strong,  and  the  miracles  of  such  a  conclusive 
character  in  themselves,  that  an  intelligible  line  of  partition  can- 
not be  made  between  them  and  the  Scripture  miracles,  without 
the  adoption  of  a  rule  so  extraordinary?  Was  the  most  learned 
Divine  compelled,  from  the  inexorable  necessity  of  his  case,  to 
adopt  a  principle  essentially  the  same  with  that  of  Hume  ?  Is 
it,  then,  necessary  to  defeat  the  Catholic  miracles,  to  impeach 
the  veracity,  and  reject  the  testimony  of  all  men,  except  those 
who  lived  at  one  single  period  of  time  ?  Are  men  still  men  ? 
Or  have  they  degenerated  to  beasts  ?  Have  they  no  integrity 
left  ?  Was  the  natural  effect  of  Christianity  to  make  men  more 
the  dupes  of  imposition  ?  Were  they  not  expressly  told  to  be 
wise  as  serpents,  while  they  were  harmless  as  doves  ?  To  mark 
this  line  between  the  Scripture  and  Catholic  miracles,  are  we 
driven  to  the  melancholy  and  miserable  conclusion  that  truth, 
integrity,  and  discretion,  were  only  found  at  one  period  of  man's 
history  ?  That  since  the  establishment  of  Christianity,  men  have 
grown  worse  instead  of  better  ?  If  so,  it  must  be  so.  But  it  is 
a  most  humiliating  and  painful  conclusion. 

Are  we  honest  ourselves  ?  If  so,  can  we  know  the  fact  ? 
And  if  we  can  and  do  know  it,  is  there  no  means  by  which  we 
can  show  it  to  others  ?  And  if  we  are  honest,  can  we  not  speak 
the  truth  ?  And  when  we  do  speak  the  truth,  should  wre  not 
be  believed  ?  And  what  we  claim  for  ourselves,  shall  we  not 
accord  to  others  ?  Shall  we  do  right  ?  Shall  we  be  just  ? 


MIRACLES.  251 

§  4.  Protestant  theories  further  considered. 

In  reference  to  the  views  of  Protestants  before  the  time  of 
Dr.  Middleton,  he  says  : 

"  The  prevailing  opinion  of  Protestants,  namely,  of  Tillotson, 
Marshall,  Dodwell,  &c.,  is,  that  miracles  continued  during  the 
three  first  centuries.  Dr.  Waterland  brings  them  down  to  the 
fourth,  Dr.  Berriman  to  the  fifth.  These  unwarily  betrayed  the 
Protestant  cause  into  the  hands  of  its  enemies :  for  it  was  in 
these  primitive  ages,  particularly  in  the  third,  fourth,  and  fifth, 
those  flourishing  times  of  miracles,  in  which  the  chief  corruptions 
of  Popery,  monkery,  the  worship  of  saints,  prayers  for  the  dead, 
the  superstitious  use  of  images  and  of  sacraments  were  intro- 
duced." "  We  shall  find,  after  the  conversion  of  the  Roman 
empire,  the  greater  part  of  their  boasted  miracles  were  wrought 
either  by  monks,  or  relics,  or  the  sign  of  the  cross,  &c. :  where- 
fore, if  we  admit  the  miracles,  we  must  admit  the  rites  for  the 
sake  of  which  they  were  wrought :  they  both  rest  on  the  same 
bottom."  "  Every  one  may  see  what  a  resemblance  the  prince 
pies  and  practices  of  the  fourth  century,  as  they  are  described 
by  the  most  eminent  Fathers  of  that  age,  bear  to  the  present 
rites  of  the  Popish  church."  "  By  granting  the  Romanists  but 
a  single  age  of  miracles  after  the  times  of  the  apostles,  we  shall 
be  entangled  in  a  series  of  difficulties,  whence  we  can  never  fair- 
ly extricate  ourselves,  till  we  allow  the  same  powers  also  to 
the  present  age."  (Cited  Milner's  End  of  Con.,  Letter  xxiii.) 

In  reference  to  the  opinions  of  Protestants,  as  to  the  period 
when  miracles  are  alleged  to  have  ceased,  Gibbon,  in  a  note  to 
the  fifteenth  chapter  of  his  Decline  and  Fall,  says :  "  The  con- 
version of  Constantine  is  the  era  most  usually  fixed  by  Protes- 
tants. The  more  rational  divines  are  unwilling  to  admit  the 
miracles  of  the  IVth,  whilst  the  more  credulous  are  unwilling  to 
reject  those  of  the  Vth  century." 

It  will  be  seen  that  Dr.  Middleton  takes  the  distinct  ground 
that  no  miracles  have  been  performed  since  the  times  of  the 
apostles.  And  although,  from  his  statement  in  the  first  extract, 
we  might  infer  that  he  did  not  intend  to  deny  the  alleged  mir- 
acles of  the  second  century,  as  he  specifies  those  particularly  of 
the  third,  fourth,  and  fifth,  the  last  extract  is  very  full  to  the 


252  MIRACLES. 

point,  and  excludes  all  miracles  after  the  days  of  the  apostles. 
And  the  reason  is  well  assigned  by  Middleton,  that  the  admis- 
sion of  miracles  after  the  times  of  the  apostles,  involves  the 
Protestant  theory  in  a  series  of  difficulties.  And  such  an  ad- 
mission certainly  does. 

But  has  not  the  theory  of  Dr.  Middleton  also  its  "  series  of 
difficulties  "  f  How  will  he  get  around  the  evidence  of  alleged 
miracles  since  the  apostolic  times  ?  Dr.  Paley  adopts  the  arbi- 
trary principle,  that  the  witnesses  are  incompetent,  while  Dr. 
Middleton  takes  the  bold  ground,  that  the  testimony  is  false, 
and  the  witnesses  perjured.  He  says  :  "  It  must  be  confessed, 
that  the  claim  to  a  miraculous  power  was  universally  asserted 
and  believed  in  all  Christian  countries,  and  in  all  ages  of  the 
church  till  the  time  of  the  Reformation :  for  Ecclesiastical  His- 
tory makes  no  difference  between  one  age  and  another,  but  car- 
ries on  the  succession  of  its  miracles,  as  of  all  other  common 
events,  through  all  of  them  indifferently  to  that  memorable  pe- 
riod." "  As  far  as  church  historians  can  illustrate  any  thing, 
there  is  not  a  single  point,  in  all  history,  so  constantly,  explicit- 
ly, and  unanimously  affirmed  by  them,  as  the  continual  succes- 
sion of  those  powers,  through  all  ages,  from  the  earliest  Father 
who  first  mentions  them,  down  to  the  Reformation  ;  which 
same  succession  is  still  further  deduced  by  persons  of  the  same 
eminent  character  for  probity,  learning,  and  dignity  in  the 
Romish  church,  to  this  very  day :  so  that  the  only  doubt  which 
can  remain  with  us,  is,  whether  church  historians  are  to  be 
trusted  or  not :  for  if  any  credit  be  due  to  them  in  the  present 
case,  it  must  reach  to  all  or  none :  because  the  reason  for  be- 
lieving them  in  any  one  age  will  be  found  to  be  of  equal  force 
in  all,  as  far  as  it  depends  on  the  character  of  the  persons  attest- 
ing, or  on  the  thing  attested."  "  When  we  reflect  upon  the 
surprising  confidence  with  which  the  fathers  of  the  fourth  age 
affirmed,  as  true,  what  they  themselves  had  forged,  or  knew  to 
be  forged,  it  is  natural  to  suspect  that  so  bold  a  defiance  of 
truth  could  not  be  acquired  or  become  general  at  once,  but 
must  have  been  gradually  carried  to  that  height  by  the  ex- 
ample of  former  ages."  (Cited  Milner's  End  Con.,  Letter 
rdii) 

It  must  be  confessed  that  the  language  of  Dr.  Middleton  is 


MIRACLES.  253 

candid  and  emphatic,  definite  and  certain.  The  meaning  is  pal- 
pable. He  does  not  seek  to  avoid  a  difficulty  by  an  evasion  of 
his  true  position,  but  states  it  manfully,  and  takes  the  conse- 
quences. He  does  not  equivocate,  as  if 

"  Willing  to  wound,  and  yet  afraid  to  strike." 

He  admits,  what  no  candid  man,  it  would  seem,  can  deny,  that 
the  historians  who  record  these  alleged  miracles  were  persons 
of  "  eminent  character  for  probity,  learning,  and  dignity."  He 
does  not  quibble  and  say,  their  testimony  is  not  direct  and  full 
to  the  point.  He  admits  that.  He  does  not  say  they  were  de- 
ceived— that  they  were  the  dupes  of  others.  But  he  does  say 
plainly,  they  were  all  liars  and  cheats  from  the  first  to  the  last — 
from  the  beginning  to  the  end.  He  does  not  say  these  were 
pious  impositions,  arising  from  an  honest  but  mistaken  zeal ;  as 
if  there  could  be  an  honest  rogue,  or  a  pious  cheat.  He  takes 
the  consistent  ground  that  the  "things  attested"  were  matters 
about  which  men  could  not  be  mistaken  ;  and  that  the  "persons 
attesting  affirmed,  as  true,  what  they  themselves  had  forged,  or 
knew  to  be  forged."  Bishop  Watson,  in  his  third  letter  to 
Gibbon,  takes  the  same  ground.  "  We  see  the  pretensions  of 
the  Romish  priesthood,"  he  says,  uto  miraculous  powers,  and 
we  know  them  to  be  false  ;  we  are  conscious  that  they,  at  least, 
must  sacrifice  their  integrity  to  their  interest  or  their  ambition." 
Mr.  Breckenridge  also  takes  the  same  ground ;  and  says,  in 
reference  to  the  rites  and  ceremonies  of  the  Catholic  Church : 
"  and  sustaining  them  by  such  barefaced  impostures  called  mir- 
acles." (Controversy  H.  &  B.,  332.) 

Among  the  secondary  causes  assigned  by  Gibbon,  in  the  fif- 
teenth chapter  of  his  Decline  and  Fall,  for  the  rapid  progress 
of  Christianity,  he  sets  down,  "  the  miraculous  powers  ascribed 
to  the  primitive  church ; "  and  in  speaking  of  this  cause,  he 
sa>s : 

"  But  the  miraculous  cure  of  diseases  of  the  most  inveterate, 
or  even  preternatural  kind,  can  no  longer  occasion  any  surprise 
when  we  recollect,  that  in  the  days  of  Irenaeus,  about  the  end 
of  the  second  century,  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  was  very  far 
from  being  esteemed  an  uncommon  event ;  that  miracle  was 
frequently  performed  upon  necessary  occasions,  by  great  fasting 


254:  MIRACLES. 

and  the  joint  supplications  of  the  church  of  the  place,  and  that 
the  persons  thus  restored  to  their  prayers,  had  lived  afterwards 
among -them  many  years." 

"  The  Christian  church,  from  the  time  of  the  apostles  and 
their  first  disciples,  has  claimed  an  uninterrupted  succession  of 
miraculous  powers,  the  gift  of  tongues,  of  vision  and  prophecy, 
the  power  of  expelling  demons,  of  healing  the  sick,  and  of  rais- 
ing the  dead." 

Again  he  says :  "  Dr.  Middleton  observes  that  as  this  pre- 
tension (the  gift  of  tongues)  of  all  others  was  the  most  difficult 
to  support  by  art,  it  was  the  soonest  given  up.  The  observation 
suited  his  hypothesis."  *  *  *  "  Every  age  bears  testimony  to 
the  wonderful  events  by  which  it  was  distinguished,  and  its  tes- 
timony appears  no  less  weighty  and  respectable  than  that  of 
the  preceding  generation,  till  we  are  insensibly  led  on  to  accuse 
our  own  consistency,  if  in  the  eighth  or  twelfth  century  we  deny 
to  the  venerable  Bede,  or  to  the  holy  Bernard,  the  same  degree 
of  confidence,  which,  in  the  second  century,  we  had  so  liberally 
granted  to  Justin  or  to  Irena3us.  If  the  truth  of  any  of  these 
miracles  is  appreciated  by  their  apparent  use  and  propriety, 
every  age  had  unbelievers  to  convince,  heretics  to  confute,  and 
idolatrous  nations  to  convert ;  and  sufficient  motives  might  al- 
ways be  produced,  to  justify  the  interposition  of  Heaven." 

The  facts  attested  and  conceded,  and  the  ground  taken,  are 
certainly  very  important.  In  my  investigations  upon  this  sub- 
ject, having  always  believed,  because  I  found  it  always  asserted 
by  Protestants,  that  the  alleged  Catholic  miracles  were  spurious, 
and  because  I  had  not  known  what  were  the  alleged  proofs, 
these  facts  and  this  testimony  did  make  a  most  powerful  im- 
pression upon  my  mind.  I  had  been  a  lawyer  for  some  years, 
and  had  given  much  attention  to  the  subject  of  human  credi- 
bility. I  did  not  dream  that  the  testimony  to  support  the 
alleged  Catholic  miracles  was  so  strong — direct — certain — long 
continued — so  often  repeated — and  by  so  many  witnesses — in 
so  many  different  places — in  so  many  continuous  ages  one  after 
another — and  these  witnesses  "persons  of  eminent  character  for 
probity,  learning,  and  dignity  ^  as  Dr.  Middleton  candidly  ad- 
mits, and  as  Gibbon  testifies.  Nor  did  I  dream  that,  to  over- 
come this  proof,  Protestants  were  forced  to  adopt  rules  so  arbi- 


MIRACLES.  255 

trary,  or  so  acrimonious.  And  when  I  looked  into  the  matter 
carefully,  I  found  that  Dr.  Middleton  had  not  admitted  too 
much,  when  he  says: 

"  As  far  as  church  historians  can  illustrate  any  thing,  there 
is  not  a  single  point,  in  all  history,  so  constantly,  explicitly,  and 
unanimously  affirmed  by  them,  as  the  continued  succession  of 
those  powers,  through  all  ages,  from  the  earliest  Father  who 
first  mentions  them,  down  to  the  Reformation."  And  that 
"  the  claim  to  a  miraculous  power  was  universally  asserted  and 
believed  in  all  Christian  countries,  and  in  all  ages  of  the 
church,"  as  Dr.  Middleton  asserts,  (which  must  of  course  in- 
clude the  second,  the  days  immediately  succeeding  the  apostles,) 
is  clear,  not  only  from  his  admissions,  and  the  testimony  of 
Gibbon,  but  from  the  earliest  records  and  monuments  of  the 
church,  and  the  testimony  of  Heathen  writers  themselves.  And 
these  earliest  church  historians  were  most  of  them  holy  martyrs, 
4  who  sealed  their  faith,  and  their  testimony,  by  their  voluntary 
blood. 

The  rule  laid  down  by  Dr.  Middleton,  and  followed  by  most 
Protestant  writers  since  his  day,  gives  rise  to  very  momentous 
reflections.  It  is  certainly  one  of  the  most  formidable  and 
extensive  wholesale  charges  ever  preferred  against  human  na- 
ture, and  concedes  all  the  Infidel  could  desire,  to  enable  him  to 
defeat  Christianity  itself.  The  charges,  upon  their  face,  are, 
indeed,  most  extraordinary.  There  is  an  amount  of  calm,  dis- 
passionate, cool,  calculating,  continued,  successful  forgery  and 
falsehood,  joined  to  the  most  consummate  and  life-long  hypoc- 
risy, and  in  persons  who  gave  the  greatest  possible  proofs  of 
integrity,  and  under  circumstances  which  insured  it,  that  has,  I 
apprehend,  no  parallel  among  mankind.  The  mind  sickens,  and 
staggers,  and  sinks,  under  such  a  mighty  mass  of  unlimited 
fraud.  One  cannot  tell  what  to  think  of  the  vice  and  stupidity 
of  poor  human  nature,  even  in  its  best  aspect ;  nor  can  the 
mind  find  where  to  rest. 

This  stupendous  charge  of  human  delinquency,  involves,, 
among  others,  these  clear  difficulties  : 

1.  The  combination  is  so  extensive,  embracing  so  many  per- 
sons, in  places  so  widely  separated  from  each  other,  and  in  so 
many  distant  ages,  and  for  so  long  a  time,  that  one  cannot  con 


256  MIRACLES. 

ceive  how  it  could  be  possible.  We  know  from  dany  proceed 
ings  in  our  courts  of  justice,  that  combinations  of  villains  are 
broken  up  every  day — that  they  cannot  last  long.  Dishonest 
men  will  fall  out.  Men  without  principle,  change  with  chang- 
ing circumstances. 

2.  But  the  combination  is  not  only  incredible,  when  consid- 
ered with  reference  to  numbers,  places,  and  duration ;  but  the 
false  facts  to  be  established  by  false  proofs,  were  of  such  an  ex- 
traordinary character  as  to  preclude  the  possibility  of  success. 
They  were  plain,  palpable,  public  facts,  cognizant  by  the  senses, 
alleged  to  have  been  performed  in  the  presence  of  numbers — 
subjected  to  every  proper  test,  and  were  so  fully  proven,  that 
they  were  "  universally  asserted  and  believed."     The  most  in- 
veterate physical  diseases  are  alleged  to  have  been  cured — men 
raised  from  the  dead,  and  the  patients  in  these  cases  remained 
afterwards   among    those    who   knew   them    most    intimately. 
Many  of  these  alleged  miracles  were  performed  in  answer  to 
the  prayers  of  whole  churches,  and  were  witnessed  by  great 
numbers.     And  as  to  the  character  of  these  alleged  miracles, 
considered  abstractly,  they  were  just  as  various,  and  credible  in 
themselves,  as  the  Scripture  miracles.     False  miracles,  it  is  true, 
like  false  coin,  have  been  asserted  to  have  been  performed  ;  but 
they  were  confuted  and  exposed.     And  the  very  fact  that  false 
miracles  existed,  is  a  proof  that  true  miracles  also  existed.     A 
false  coin  is  always  but  an  imitation  of  the  genuine.     Had  there 
never  been  a  genuine  coin,  there  could  not  have  been  a  coun- 
terfeit.    And  the  fact  that  false  miracles  have  been  detected 
and  exposed  by  proof,  is  a  strong  confirmatory  evidence  that 
those  not  thus  detected  and  exposed,  are  true.     It  marks  the 
dividing  line  between  the  false  and  the  true. 

3.  But  this  ground  is  not  only  incredible,  on  account  of  the 
character  of  the  alleged  combination,  and  the  notorious  and 
visible  nature  of  the  false  facts  to  be  established  by  it ;  but  it 
imputes  vice  and  stupidity,  of  the  most  extraordinary  character, 
to  the  men  of  an  age  and  reputation,  where  we  should  expect 
the  most  heroic  virtue,  and  the  greatest  Christian  knowledge. 

That  vice  of  the  most  extensive  and  iniquitous  kind  should 
be  found  among  men  of  the  most  eminent  character  for  probity, 
learning,  and  dignity,  as  Dr.  Middleton  has  it,  is  surely  most 


MIRACLES.  5J.57 

extraordinary.  And  that  the  immediate  successors  of  the  apos- 
tles had  among  them  so  much  fraud,  and  at  the  same  time  so 
much  stupidity,  is  also  most  astonishing.  For  this  stupendous 
system  of  fraud  is  alleged  to  have  originated  with  those  ap- 
pointed by  the  apostles  themselves,  and  was  imposed  upon 
those  they  had  themselves  taught  and  converted  by  their  own 
labors.  And  not  only  so,  but  it  had  its  origin  in  the  days  of 
persecution,  when  it  would  seem  that  most  men  could  not  have 
professed  Christianity,  but  from  honest  motives.  For  we  know, 
if  there  be  any  truth  in  history  at  all,  that  persecutions,  general, 
bloody,  and  cruel,  were  oft  repeated  against  the  Christians  from 
the  days  of  Christ,  until  A.  D.  312.  And  these  persecutions 
were  as  cruel  as  human  ingenuity  could  well  make  them. 
Every  description  of  insult  and  affliction  awaited  the  Christian. 
The  Church  had  short  intervals  of  rest,  only  to  be  followed  by 
renewed  persecution.  In  the  simple  and  beautiful  language  of 
the  author  of  Diognetus,  who  wrote  about  A.  D.  130,  and  who 
states  that  he  "  was  a  disciple  of  the  apostle,"  the  Christians 
"  loved  all  men  and  were  persecuted  by  all ;  they  were  unknown, 
and  yet  were  condemned."  *  *  *  "  They  were  treated  with  dis- 
honor, and  by  dishonor  are  made  glorious ;  their  integrity  is  in- 
sured by  the  insults  they  suffer ;  when  cursed,  they  bless,  and 
reproaches  they  pay  with  respect.  When  doing  good  they  are 
punished  as  evil-doers ;  and  when  they  are  punished  they  rejoice 
as  men  that  are  raised  unto  life.  By  Jews  they  are  treated  as 
aliens  and  foes ;  by  Greeks  they  are  persecuted ;  and  none  of 
their  enemies  can  state  a  ground  for  their  enmity." 

"  Their  integrity  was  insured  by  the  insults  they  suffered." 
And  is  not  this  statement  the  most  reasonable,  upon  its  face, 
that  could  be  imagined  ?  For  if  we  cannot  find  integrity  among 
the  twelve  millions  of  martyrs  who  suffered  in  those  persecu- 
tions, as  also  among  those  who  incurred,  but  escaped  the  dan- 
gers, where  shah1  we  look  for  it  ?  Shall  we  seek  it  among  those 
who  never  gave  any  such  proof  of  it  ? 

And  these  men  of  eminent  character,  who  are  alleged  to 
have  committed  these  innumerable  forgeries  and  frauds,  who 
were  they  f  Were  they  Christians  f  Could  they  be  such  ? 
Were  they,  under  this  supposition,  any  thing  else  but  Atheists, 
cheats,  and  liars  ?  What  else  can  we  justly  call  them  ?  Were 


258  MIRACLES. 

they  not  hypocrites,  who  wore  masks  all  their  lives,  and  died 
with  them  still  on  ?  Did  they  not  go  about  lying  to  teach  vir- 
tue f  Did  they  not  seal  falsehood  with  their  voluntary  deaths  ? 
And  the  members  of  tLe  Church  who  believed  these  things,  who 
were  they  f  Were  the/  not  simple,  stupid  dupes,  fit  victims  of 
dishonesty  ?  Had  they  lc*t  all  their  senses  ?  Were  they  hon- 
est ?  Did  not  all  these  thin^  happen  in  the  most  enlightened 
age  of  Rome  ?  In  the  Augustan  age  of  orators,  poets,  histo- 
rians, and  philosophers  ? 

But  what  adequate  motives  could  have  influenced  these 
men  ?  Men  do  not  commit  great  crimes  without  great  mo- 
tives. Is  it  not  a  weary  thing  to  wear  a  mask  through  life  ? 
How  it  goads  the  unnatural  wearer !  How  ill  it  fits !  And 
what  greater  tests  of  sincerity  did  the  apostles  undergo,  than 
those  endured  in  the  second,  third,  and  part  of  the  fourth  cen- 
tury ?  The  persecutions  were  the  same,  the  honors  no  more. 
The  Christians  of  those  centuries  had  before  their  eyes  the  same 
infamy,  tortures,  and  death.  In  both  cases  their  "  integrity 
was  insured  by  the  insults  they  suffered."  And  if  the  love  of 
fame  could  possibly  be  supposed  to  have  produced  such  a  result, 
then  Christ  and  His  apostles  had,  if  any  difference,  greater  mo- 
tives to  put  forth  false  statements  than  their  immediate  succes- 
sors, for  the  reason,  that  there  is  more  glory  in  founding  an  in- 
stitution, than  in  sustaining  it  afterwards. 

4.  But  besides  these  difficulties,  the  position  of  Dr.  Middle- 
ton  impeaches  the  diligence  and  capacity  of  the  apostles  them- 
selves. If  miracles  were  to  have  ceased  with  the  apostles,  why 
did  they  not  tell  us  so  ?  Why  did  they  not  so  inform  those 
they  themselves  taught  ?  Did  they  know  it  ?  It  was  certainly 
a  most  important  matter;  none  scarcely  more  so.  So  far  from 
telling  us  so,  they  speak  of  miraculous  powers,  as  they  do  of 
any  other  permanent  thing  in  the  Church.  If,  on  the  contrary, 
they  did  well  instruct  the  bishops  whom  they  appointed,  as  well 
as  the  elders  and  members  generally,  and  did  inform  them  that 
miracles  should  cease  with  their  lives,  where  do  we  find  the 
slightest  evidence  of  such  a  fact  ?  And  these  bishops  and  elders 
must  have  been  very  incompetent  and  unworthy  men.  The 
apostles  must  have  made  very  bad  appointments.  And  the 
people  they  taught,  must  have  been  very  poorly  instructed. 


MIRACLES.  259 

The  idea  that  the  whole  Church,  so  widely  diffused,  and  con- 
taming  such  numbers  in  her  communion,  should  unanimously, 
in  the  days  of  stern  trial,  and  immediately  after  the  apostles, 
and  contrary  to  their  express  instructions,  still  affirm,  and  as- 
sume to  believe  in,  the  continued  existence  of  miracles,  contrary 
to  the  truth  and  the  fact,  is  so  unreasonable  in  itself,  that  I  con- 
fess I  cannot  believe  it  to  be  true.  And  the  idea  that  the  apos- 
tles neglected  to  teach  them  properly,  I  cannot  admit.  Nor 
can  I  understand  how  it  could  be  possible  to  find,  especially  in 
that  honest  and  enlightened  period,  so  much  corruption  and 
stupidity  in  the  Church. 

5.  But  if  such  a  combination  were  possible,  and  did  take 
place,  and  has  continued  in  successful  operation  for  about  eigh- 
teen centuries,  so  that  the  great  and  overwhelming  majority  of 
professed  Christians,  in  all  ages,  have  been  its  dupes  and  vic- 
tims ;  is  it  not  most  remarkable  that  none  of  the  thousand  sects 
of  ancient  and  modern  times  have  made  and  sustained  any  such 
pretensions  ?  Why  was  this  so  ?  They  could  not,  each  and 
all  of  them,  have  been  the  true  Church.  They  were  often  re- 
proached because  they  could  perform  no  miracles.  Were  they 
all  too  honest  to  make  such  a  pretension  ?  Were  all  the  im- 
postors in  the  Catholic  Church  ?  Where  was  Marcion,  who 
mutilated  the  Scriptures  to  sustain  his  own  views  ?  Was  he 
too  honest  to  attempt  a  fraud  so  practical  and  easy,  and  so 
much  needed  to  support  the  pretensions  of  his  theory  ?  Why 
did  not  some  other  party  try  this  successful  experiment  ?  Suc- 
cessful experiments  never  want  imitators  and  competitors.  The 
originators  are  never  "  left  alone  in  their  glory."  Others  are 
certain  to  "  take  up  the  tuneful  lay." 

And  I  am  not  aware  that  such  a  claim  to  a  continued  succes- 
sion of  miraculous  powers,  of  the  same  or  similar  character,  is 
made  by  the  adherents  of  any  other  religion  in  the  world,  Mo- 
hammedan or  Pagan.  "  Mohammed,"  Dr.  Paley  says,  "  did  not 
found  his  pretensions  upon  miracles  properly  so  called  ;  that  is, 
upon  proofs  of  supernatural  agency,  capable  of  being  known  and 
attested  by  others."  (Ev.  Chr.)  And  the  powers  claimed  by 
the  ancient  magicians  and  the  Eastern  jugglers  bear  no  compar- 
ison, either  with  the  Scripture  or  Catholic  miracles.  And  as 
Christianity  is  unlike  any  other  religion  in  the  world  in  regard 


260  MIRACLES. 

to  the  time  and  proofs  of  its  origin,  so  the  claim  of  the  Catholic 
Church  to  so  long  a  succession  of  such  miraculous  powers,  is 
without  any  parallel,  I  apprehend,  in  the  history  of  mankind. 

6.  But  if  the  "  prevailing  opinion  of  Protestants,  that  miracles 
continued  during  the  three  first  centuries,"  "  unwarily  betrayed 
the  Protestant  cause  into  the  hands  of  its  enemies,"  as  Dr.  Mid- 
dleton  has  it ;  his  position,  I  apprehend,  when  fairly  and  logi- 
cally considered,  "betrays  the  cause"  of  Christianity  itself  "into 
the  hands  of  its  enemies."  For  this  position  of  his  assumes,  as 
true,  a  state  of  practical  fraud  and  delusion,  on  the  part  of  the 
primitive  Christians,  that  destroys  all  confidence  in  their  discre- 
tion and  veracity.  If  true,  the  position  undermines  all  confi- 
dence in  human  integrity  itself,  and  amply  sustains  Mr.  Hume's 
position,  that  men  are  not  competent  to  prove  a  miracle  for  any 
religious  purpose.  And  the  logical  mind  cannot  understand 
why  we  should  believe  miracles  of  one  age  upon  the  testimony 
of  witnesses,  and  refuse  to  believe  the  miracles  of  a  subsequent 
age,  proven  by  the  same  kind  of  testimony,  and  miracles  of  the 
same  visible,  palpable,  public  character,  and  established  by  a 
succession  of  witnesses,  more  numerous,  and  equally  credible. 
Nor  can  the  logical  mind  understand,  if  the  alleged  miracles  of 
the  second,  third,  and  fourth  centuries  were  false,  and  still  uni- 
versally claimed  as  true,  and  received  as  such,  when  the  Church 
was  so  much  more  extended,  and  contained  so  many  more  mem- 
bers, why  the  original  miracles  could  not  have  been  palmed 
upon  the  converts  of  the  apostles.  4-  For  if  all  the  ancient 
Fathers,"  asks  Dr.  Milner,  "  and  other  writers  are  to  be  disbe- 
lieved, respecting  the  miracles  of  their  times,  and  those  which 
they  themselves  witnessed,  upon  what  grounds  are  we  to  believe 
them,  in  their  report  of  the  miracles  which  they  had  heard  of 
Christ  and  His  apostles,  those  main  props  of  the  Gospel,  and  our 
common  Christianity  ?  Who  knows  but  they  may  have  forged 
all  the  contents  of  the  former,  and  the  whole  history  of  the  lat- 
ter ?  "  (End  of  Con.)  And  the  reasoning  mind  will  ask  this 
obvious  question :  "  If  these  false  pretensions  to  miracles  as 
great,  visible,  and  public,  as  the  alleged  miracles  of  Christ  and 
His  apostles,  have  been  so  successfully  maintained  and  believed 
by  such  numbers  in  all  ages,  why  could  not  the  early  Christians 
and  others  have  been  deceived  by  like  false  pretensions  ?  " 


MIRACLES.  26  J 

And  I  cannot  understand  upon  what  rational  ground  Dr. 
Middleton,  as  also  all  Protestant  writers,  in  sustaining  Christian- 
ity against  unbelievers,  should  quote  and  rely  upon  the  testi- 
mony of  these  "  eminent "  false  witnesses.  For  the  unbeliever 
may  well  say : 

"  You  cannot  expect  me  to  believe  witnesses,  that  you  admit 
and  insist  are  perjured.  Surely  you  do  not  intend  to  mock  my 
understanding  by  asking  me  to  believe  the  testimony  of  the  very 
witnesses  whom  you,  yourselves,  have  been  most  careful  to  im- 
peach f  For  if  they  would  lie  to  sustain  Christianity  in  one 
way,  surely  they  would  in  any  other  way  that  was  practical  and 
efficient.  And  you  have  saved  me  the  trouble  of  proving  two 
important  points,  namely : 

1.  Fraud  and  falsehood  on  the  part  of  the  leaders  among  the 
early  Christians. 

2.  Delusion  on  the  part  of  their  followers ;  for  you  have, 
indeed,   assumed    both.      Nobody   recorded    your  apostolical 
miracles  but  Christians  ;  and  you  have  given  them  just  such  a 
character  for  fraud  and  delusion  as  would  make  them^  subjects 
for  impostors  and  victims." 

And  Mr.  Gibbon,  in  his  Decline  and  Fall,  chapter  fifteen,  has 
seen  and  stated  the  advantages  the  Protestant  position  gives  the 
infidel.  In  speaking  of  the  period  when  miracles  are  alleged  to 
have  ceased,  he  says : 

"  Whatever  era  is  chosen  for  that  purpose,  the  death  of  the 
apostles,  the  conversion  of  the  Roman  empire,  or  the  extension 
of  the  Arian  heresy,  the  insensibility  of  the  Christians  who  lived 
at  that  time  will  equally  afford  a  just  matter  of  surprise.  They 
still  supported  their  pretensions  after  they  had  lost  their  power. 
Credulity  performed  the  office  of  faith ;  fanaticism  was  permitted 
to  assume  the  language  of  inspiration,  and  the  effects  of  accident 
or  contrivance  were  ascribed  to  supernatural  causes.  The  re- 
cent experience  of  genuine  miracles  should  have  instructed  the 
Christian  world  in  the  ways  of  Providence,  and  habituated  their 
eye  (if  we  may  use  a  very  inadequate  expression)  to  the  style 
of  the  divine  artist." 

And  certainly  there  is  great  force  in  Mr.  Gibbon's  remarks, 
if  we  take  the  Protestant  position  as  true,  for  the  sake  of  the  ar- 
gument only.  It  is  surely  very  astonishing  that  the  very  men 


202  MIRACLES. 

who  were  best  acquainted  with  the  true,  should  be  the  most 
readily  deceived  by  the  false  miracles. 

And  in  vain  will  Dr.  Paley  insist  upon  his  assumed  distinc- 
tion between  the  competency  of  witnesses  of  miracles  performed 
in  the  origin  of  Christianity,  and  those  performed  afterwards,  in 
affirmance  of  the  same  religion.  It  is  a  distinction  without  any 
substantial  difference.  Every  one  must  see  that  the  end  of  all 
tests  is  to  show  the  ability  and  integrity  of  witnesses.  As  to 
ability,  their  senses  and  opportunities  will  show  that.  And  as 
to  their  integrity,  it  does  not  matter  by  what  means  you  prove 
it,  so  they  are  satisfactory.  Voluntary  death  and  voluntary 
sufferings  are  not  necessarily  evidence  of  the  correctness  of  the 
sufferer's  religion,  but  they  do  prove  his  sincerity.  If,  then,  the 
religion  itself,  for  which  he  thus  voluntarily  suffers,  plainly  teach- 
es him  that  falsehood  forfeits  all  its  rewards,  and  incurs  all  its 
punishments,  he  cannot  die  with  a  lie  in  his  mouth.  And  it 
may  be  assumed  as  certain,  that  no  sincere  Christian  can  give 
false  testimony  as  to  facts,  about  which  he  cannot  be  mistaken. 
We  believe  the  apostles  because  their  conduct  and  character 
proved  the  sincerity  of  their  belief  in  a  system  which  promised 
them  no  competent  earthly  rewards.  We  can  find  no  adequate 
motive,  then,  for  perjury.  And  upon  the  same  ground,  we 
should  believe  the  testimony  of  witnesses,  whose  labors,  suffer- 
ings, and  deaths,  or  other  evidences,  proved  their  sincerity  in 
the  belief  of  the  same  system.  It  promised  them  no  title  in 
this  world,  and  threatened  them  with  forfeiture  and  punishment 
in  the  next,  for  the  same  kind  of  vice.  It  does  not  matter 
whether  Christianity  be  true  or  not,  the  witness  who  firmly  be- 
lieves it,  whether  in  the  beginning,  or  at  any  subsequent  time, 
must  be  equally  honest,  and  equally  credible. 

If  it  be  said  that  the  works  imputed  to  the  Fathers  of  the 
second  and  third  centuries,  were  forged  by  those  of  the  fourth, 
and  thus  palmed  upon  the  Christian  world  as  true,  this  solution 
creates  new  difficulties  equally  great.  These  various  writers 
were  men  of  eminent  character,  and  widely  known.  Their  works 
are  referred  to  and  quoted  by  each  other  in  so  many  ways,  that 
such  a  forgery  is  impossible.  If  these  works  were  forgeries,  and 
published,  not  as  new  works,  but  as  works  written  when  they 
purport  to  have  been  written,  how  did  they  succeed  in  deceiving 


MIKACLES.  263 

the  world  ?  The  first  time  these  books  appeared,  they  must 
have  created  great  astonishment.  And  if  these  numerous  works 
could  be  the  forgery  of  a  subsequent  age,  so  could  the  Scrip- 
tures, for  the  New  Testament  Scriptures  are  not  referred  to  by 
any  single  writer,  Roman  or  Greek,  until  after  the  apostles  were 
dead.  In  fact,  if  this  position  be  assumed,  it  at  once  answers 
Leslie's  celebrated  "  Short  and  Easy  Method  with  the  Deists." 
The  ground  he  takes  would  be  completely  answered  by  such  a 
position.  And  in  reference  to  these  writers,  Dr.  Paley  very  just- 
ly  says : 

"  It  may  help  to  convey  to  us  some  notion  of  the  extent  and 
progress  of  Christianity,  or  rather  of  the  character  and  quality 
of  many  early  Christians,  of  their  learning,  and  their  labors,  to 
notice  the  number  of  Christian  writers  who  flourished  in  these 
ages.  Saint  Jerome's  catalogue  contains  sixty-six  writers  within 
the  first  three  centuries,  and  the  first  six  years  of  the  fourth ; 
and  fifty-four  between  that  time  and  his  own  ;  viz.,  A.  D.  392. 
Jerome  introduces  his  catalogue  with  the  following  just  remon- 
strance :  '  Let  those  who  say  the  church  has  had  no  philoso- 
phers, nor  eloquent  and  learned  men,  observe  who  and  what 
they  were  who  founded,  established,  and  adorned  it :  let  them 
cease  to  accuse  our  faith  of  rusticity,  and  confess  their  mistake.' 
Of  these  writers,  several,  as  Justin,  Irenaeus,  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria, Tertullian,  Origen,  Bardesanes,  Hippolitus,  Eusebius, 
were  voluminous  writers."  (Ev.  Chris.) 

As  to  the  number  of  Christians  in  the  primitive  ages,  Dr. 
Paley  says : 

"  Justin  Martyr,  who  wrote  about  thirty  years  after  Pliny, 
and  one  hundred  and  six  after  the  Ascension,  has  these  remark- 
able words  :  '  There  is  not  a  nation,  Greek  or  Barbarian,  or  of 
any  other  name,  even  of  those  who  wander  in  tribes,  and  live  in 
tents3  amongst  whom  prayers  and  thanksgivings  are  not  offered 
to  the  Father  and  Creator  of  the  Universe  by  the  name  of  the 
crucified  Jesus.'  Tertullian,  who  comes  about  fifty  years  after 
Justin,  appeals  to  the  governors  of  the  Roman  Empire  in  these 
terms :  4  We  were  but  of  yesterday,  and  we  have  filled  your 
cities,  islands,  towns,  and  boroughs,  the  camp,  the  Senate,  and 
\\IQ  forum.  They  (the  heathen  adversaries  of  Christianity)  la- 
merit,  that  every  sex,  age,  and  condition,  and  persons  of  every 


264  MIRACLES. 

rank  also,  are  converts  to  that  name.'  I  do  allow,  that  these 
expressions  are  loose,  and  may  be  called  declamatory.  But 
even  declamation  has  its  bounds:  this  public  boasting  upon  a 
subject  which  must  be  known  to  every  reader  was  not  only  use- 
less but  unnatural,  unless  the  truth  of  the  case,  in  a  considerable 
degree,  correspond  with  the  description ;  at  least,  unless  it  had 
been  both  true  and  notorious,  that  great  multitudes  of  Chris- 
tians, of  all  ranks  and  orders,  were  to  be  found  in  most  parts  of 
the  Roman  empire.  The  same  Tertullian,  in  another  passage, 
by  way  of  setting  forth  the  extensive  diffusion  of  Christianity, 
enumerates  as  belonging  to  Christ,  besides  many  other  countries, 
the  '  Moors  and  Gaetulians  of  Africa,  the  borders  of  Spain,  sev- 
eral nations  of  France,  and  parts  of  Britain,  inaccessible  to  the 
Romans,  the  Samaritans,  Daci,  Germans,  and  Scythians,'  and, 
which  is  more  material  than  the  extent  of  the  institution,  the 
number  of  Christians  in  the  several  countries  in  which  it  pre- 
vailed, is  thus  expressed  by  him :  '  Although  so  great  a  multi- 
tude, that  in  almost  every  ^ity  we  form  the  greater  part,  we 
pass  our  time  modestly  and  in  silence.'  Clemens  Alexandrinus, 
who  preceded  Tertullian  by  a  few  years,  introduces  a  compari- 
son between  the  success  of  Christianity,  and  that  of  the  most 
celebrated  philosophical  institutions :  4  The  philosophers  were 
confined  to  Greece,  and  to  their  particular  retainers ;  but  the 
doctrine  of  the  Master  of  Christianity  did  not  remain  in  Judea, 
as  philosophy  did  in  Greece,  but  it  spread  throughout  the  whole 
world,  in  every  nation,  and  village,  and  city,  both  of  Greeks 
and  Barbarians,  converting  both  whole  houses  and  separate  in- 
dividuals, having  already  brought  over  to  the  truth  not  a  few 
of  the  philosophers  themselves.  If  the  Greek  philosophy  be 
prohibited,  it  immediately  vanishes;  whereas  from  the  first 
preaching  of  our  doctrine,  kings  and  tyrants,  governors  and 
presidents,  with  their  whole  train,  and  with*  the  populace  on 
their  side,  have  endeavored,  with  their  whole  might,  to  exter- 
minate it,  yet  doth  it  flourish  more  and  more.' "  (Ev.  Ch.) 
He  also  gives  an  extract  from  Origen  to  the  same  effect. 

And  when  we  come  to  consider  the  number  and  character 
of  the  early  writers  and  Church  historians,  as  also  the  Christian 
clergy  of  that  day,  and  the  members  of  every  age,  sex,  condi- 
tion, and  capacity,  are  we  prepared  to  say,  that  a  large  part  of 


MIRACLES.  265 

them  were  base  and  infamous  impostors,  and  the  remainder, 
simple  and  stupid  dupes  ?  If  the  whole  Christian  world  could 
BO  deceive  and  be  deceived,  in  that  period  when  "  kings  and 
tyrants,  governors  and  presidents,  with  their  whole  train,  and 
the  populace  on  their  side,  endeavored,  with  all  their  might,  to 
exterminate  Christianity,"  who  can  believe  any  thing  depending 
upon  human  testimony  ?  Look  at  the  amount  of  labor  these 
alleged  impostors  performed.  Did  they  not  conquer  the  world 
for  Christ  ?  Who  but  they,  after  the  days  of  the  apostles,  put 
down  the  idols  and  temples  of  the  Heathens,  and  established 
Christianity  in  every  part  of  the  Roman  Empire,  and  even  in 
barbarous  countries  beyond  it  ?  Should  not  impostors  be  made 
of  viler  stuff?  And  is  not  that  professed  Christian  in  a  most 
melancholy  and  painful  position,  who  concedes  that  miracles  did 
once  happen — that  they  are  still  possible,  but  who,  to  sustain 
bis  own  particular  views,  is  forced  to  accuse  all  the  most  holy, 
eminent,  and  dignified  Christians  for  the  last  eighteen  centuries, 
of  an  incredible  combination  to  cheat  and  defraud  all  mankind  :' 

This  most  dark,  gloomy,  and  terrible  theory,  even  the  bold 
jmd  reckless  Middleton  seemed  to  wish  somewhat  to  mitigate 
and  soften,  when  he  says,  speaking  of  the  Fathers  of  the  fourth 
century  affirming  as  true,  what  they  themselves  had  forged  or 
knew  to  be  forged  :  "  It  is  natural  to  suspect  that  so  bold  a  de- 
fiance of  truth  could  not  be  acquired  or  become  general  at  once, 
but  must  have  been  gradually  carried  to  that  height  by  the  ex- 
ample of  former  ages." 

But  it  is  exceedingly  difficult  to  see  how  this  explanation 
could  help  the  matter,  or  be  reconciled  with  the  other  state- 
ments of  the  Doctor.  It  is  true,  it  somewhat  excuses  the  lying 
Fathers  of  the  fourth  century,  because  they  followed  the  exam- 
pie  of  former  ages  ;  and  it  somewhat  excuses  the  lying  exam  pies 
of  these  former  ages,  because  they  were  not  quite  so  general. 
And  if,  as  he  asserts  and  admits,  the  claim  to  such  a  power  was 
universally  asserted  and  believed  in  all  ages,  I  cannot  under- 
stand how  there  could  be  less  falsehood  and  imposition  in  these 
former  ages,  than  in  the  fourth,  in  proportion  to  numbers.  The 
claim  was  the  same — the  imposition  the  same — the  delusion  the 
pame — and  there  must  have  been  the  same  "  bold  defiance  of 
truth  "  in  these  "  former  ages  "  as  in  the  fourth  century. 
24 


266  MIRACLES. 

This  attempted  explanation  is  about  as  effectual  in  softening 
the  charge,  as  for  one  person  to  say  to  another,  with  an  exceed- 
ingly polite  air,  "  Permit  me,  sir,  if  you  please,  to  call  you  a 
liar." 

But  it  may  be  asked,  why,  if  the  proofs  of  the  Catholic  mir- 
acles are  so  strong,  and  full,  have  not  all  professing  Christians 
believed  them  ?  In  answer  to  this,  it  might  well  be  inquired, 
why  have  there  been  any  heretics  in  the  world  ?  And  is  it  not 
true  that  the  great  majority  of  professed  Christians,  in  all  ages, 
have  believed  in  the  continuance  of  miraculous  powers  in  the 
Church  ?  The  many  have  always  believed,  the  few  have  disbe- 
lieved. 

The  same  objection  is  urged  by  Infidels  against  Christianity. 
They  allege  the  fact,  that  the  majority  of  persons  in  the  ages 
and  countries  in  which  Christianity  first  appeared,  rejected  it. 
They  ask  why  all  the  Jews  and  Gentiles  who  witnessed  the  stu- 
pendous miracles  of  Christ  and  His  apostles,  did  not  believe  ? 
They  had  ocular  demonstration,  and  are  said  to  have  admitted 
not  one,  but  many  miracles.  Yet  they  were  not  converted. 

Dr.  Paley,  in  his  Evidences  of  Christianity,  notices  this  ob- 
jection, and  devotes  a  chapter  to  its  confutation.  He  admits 
the  fact  that  a  majority  rejected  Christianity  in  the  apostolic 
day,  and  he  gives  the  most  conclusive  reasons  why  they  did. 
He  divides  his  answer  into  two  parts,  one  regarding  the  Jews, 
and  the  other  the  Gentiles.  In  speaking  of  the  latter  he  says  : 
"  The  infidelity  of  the  Gentile  world,  and  that  more  especially 
of  men  of  rank  and  learning  in  it,  is  resolved  into  a  principle 
which,  in  my  judgment,  will  account  for  the  ineificacy  of  any 
argument,  or  any  evidence  whatever,  viz.  :  contempt  prior  to 
examination."  Again  he  says  :  "  This  contempt  prior  to  exam- 
ination, is  an  intellectual  vice,  from  which  the  greatest  faculties 
of  the  mind  are  not  free.  I  know  not,  indeed,  whether  men  of 
the  greatest  faculties  of  mind,  are  not  the  most  subject  to  it. 
Such  men  feel  themselves  seated  on  an  eminence.  Looking 
down  from  their  height  upon  the  follies  of  mankind,  they  behol  3 
contending  tenets  wasting  their  idle  strength  upon  one  another 
with  the  common  disdain  of  the  absurdity  of  them  all.  This  habit 
of  thought,  however  comfortable  to  the  mind  which  entertains 
it,  or  however  natural  to  great  parts,  is  extremely  dangerous ; 


MIRACLES.  267 

and  more  apt,  than  almost  any  other  disposition,  to  produce 
hasty  and  contemptuous,  and,  by  consequence,  erroneous  judg- 
ment, both  of  persons  and  opinions." 

And  how  true  it  is,  that  vanity  and  pride  are  often  predomi- 
nant in  great  minds,  who  "  feel  themselves  seated  on  an  emi- 
nence," as  Dr.  Paley  justly  states. 

And  this  most  true  and  reasonable  answer  is  just  as  applica- 
ble to  most  of  those  who  reject  the  Catholic  miracles,  as  to  those 
who  reject  the  miracles  recorded  in  Scripture.  And  as  to  the 
amount  of  contempt  with  which  Protestant  writers,  in  general, 
speak  of  the  Catholic  miracles,  any  one  can  easily  judge  by  the 
harsh  terms  they  use,  and  the  general  drift,  tone,  temper,  and 
spirit  of  their  arguments.  It  is  very  seldom  that  you  can  find  a 
Protestant  writer  who  will  calmly,  and  in  a  gentle  and  courteous 
spirit,  examine  this  subject.  Whenever  they  approach  it,  they 
seem  to  repose,  not  upon  "  a  bed  of  violets,"  but  upon  a  bed  of 
thorns.  Even  the  dignified  and  distinguished  Dr.  Paley  was 
forced  to  take  most  extraordinary  ground  to  exclude  what  he 
calls  "Popish  miracles." 

§  5.  The  Catholic  theory. 

In  reference  to  the  Catholic  theory  of  miracles,  I  shall  quote 
the  language  of  Dr.  Milner.  (End  of  Con.,  Let.  xxiii.) 

"  Methinks  I  hear  some  of  your  society  thus  asking  me :  Do 
you  then  pretend  that  your  church  possesses  the  miraculous 
power  at  the  present  day  f  I  answer,  that  the  church  never  pos- 
sessed miraculous  powers,  in  the  sense  of  most  Protestant  writ- 
ers, so  as  to  be  able  to  effect  cures  or  other  supernatural  events 
at  her  own  pleasure :  for  even  the  apostles  could  not  do  this,  as 
we  learn  from  the  history  of  the  lunatic  child.  (Matt.  xvii.  16.) 
But  this  I  say,  that  the  Catholic  church,  being  always  the  be- 
loved spouse  of  Christ,  (Rev.  xxi.  9,)  and  continuing  at  all  times 
to  bring  forth  children  of  heroical  sanctity,  God  fails  not  in  this, 
any  more  than  in  past  ages,  to  illustrate  her  and  them  by  un- 
questionable miracles." 

In  reference  to  the  case  of  the  lunatic  child,  when  the  apos- 
tles inquired  why  they  could  not  cast  out  the  evil  spirit,  Christ 
told  them,  "  because  of  your  unbelief."  But  He  also  told  them 
that  "  this  kind  goeth  not  out  but  by  prayer  and  fasting." 


268  MIRACLES. 

Nothing,  perhaps,  could  show  more  fully  the  efficiency  of 
prayer  and  fasting  than  this  case.  No  doubt  this  saying  of  our 
Lord,  as  well  as  the  practice  of  the  apostles  in  so  often  praying 
and  fasting,  gave  rise  to  the  practice  in  the  Churches,  of  praying 
and  fasting  when  they  asked  the  special  interposition  of  heaven. 
The  case  of  Peter  is  an  example.  (Acts  xii.)  Dr.  Paley,  ii 
treating  his  second  proposition,  and  in  laying  out  the  cases  ex- 
cluded by  his  first,  mentions  those  miracles  that  he  calls  tenta- 
tive^ "  that  is,"  as  he  says,  "  where,  out  of  a  great  number  of 
trials,  some  succeeded." 

In  support  of  this  exclusion  he  says :  "  Christ  never  pro- 
nounced the  word  but  the  effect  followed."  And  certainly  he 
is  right  as  to  Christ,  for  it  would  have  been  wholly  inconsistent 
with  His  character  as  God,  to  have  failed  in  a  single  instance. 
But  it  was  different  with  the  apostles.  They  were  only  agents. 
The  miracle  was  the  act  of  the  Principal,  and  performed  only 
when  He  pleased.  And  I  confess  I  cannot  understand  the  jus- 
tice or  good  sense  of  his  exclusion  of  all  tentative  miracles.  I 
am  compelled,  with  all  due  deference,  to  put  in  a  demurrer  to 
his  allegation. 

The  learned  Divine  admits  that  we  can,  at  least  in  many 
cases,  determine  whether  events  be  miraculous  or  simply  natu- 
ral. The  whole  of  his  argument  for  Christianity,  based  upon 
miracles,  proceeds  upon  this  ground.  He  first  assumes,  very 
correctly,  that  God  could  not  make  a  revelation  except  by  mira- 
cle. If  we  cannot  know  a  miracle  from  an  ordinary  event  in  any 
case,  then  miracles  can  form  no  proof  for  us.  They  would  sim- 
ply be  idle,  and  fail  to  accomplish  the  very  end  intended. 

If,  then,  we  can  judge  as  to  the  miraculous  character  of  an 
event,  why  should  we  reject  a  tentative  miracle,  simply  because 
the  subordinate  agent  of  Christ  failed  in  some  instances  ?  For 
illustration,  suppose  a  saint  to  have  made  many  efforts  to  raise 
the  dead,  and  to  have  failed ;  and  then,  upon  further  trial,  to 
succeed  ;  shall  we  reject  this  clear  case  because  we  cannot  un- 
derstand the  hidden  reasons  of  God  for  not  answering  the  prayers 
of  His  children  in  the  other  cases  ?  I  apprehend  not.  If  there 
be  one  hundred  failures,  and  one  single  clear  case  of  a  miracle, 
what  right  have  we  to  reject  it,  upon  the  ground  that  it  is  ten- 
tative f  True  it  is,  there  may  be  a  case  of  doubtful  character 


MIRACLES. 

in  itself,  which  may  properly  come  under  another  class  of  exclu 
sion  mentioned  by  Dr.  Paley.  But  his  confessed  ground  of  ex- 
clusion in  this  case  is  this,  and  this  only — the  miracles  are  tenta- 
tive. It  matters  not  how  clear  the  case  may  be — raising  the 
dead — healing  the  leper— opening  the  eyes  of  the  blind,  or  any 
other  clear  case,  still,  as  the  miracle  is  tentative,  it  must  be 
rejected  for  that  reason  only. 

This  objection  gives  rise  to  some  important  reflections  re- 
garding miracles.  I  suppose  that  every  Christian  will  concede 
that  man  is  a  little  more  capable  of  some  things  than  of  others. 
He  certainly  can  judge  better  of  facts  cognizant  by  his  senses, 
than  he  can  of  the  designs  of  God.  He  certainly  can  judge  bet- 
ter as  to  the  weight  and  credibility  of  the  testimony  of  his  own 
species,  with  whom  he  is  familiar  all  his  life,  and  in  daily  inter- 
course, than  he  can  of  the  deep  reasons  of  God.  If,  therefore, 
he  sees  an  event,  or  it  is  clearly  proven,  which  he  knows  is  mi- 
raculous, if  he  knows  any  thing,  by  what  sort  of  reason  can  he 
reject  his  positive  knowledge,  for  his  mere  conjectures  f  If  a 
miracle  be  performed — the  manner — the  time — the  agent — are 
all  immaterial.  It  does  not  matter  by  whom,  when,  or  where, 
here,  or  there.  If  the  event  be  established  by  satisfactory  proof, 
it  is  still  a  miracle.  It  is  matter  of  fact,  and  can  be  proved.  If, 
therefore,  a  miracle  be  performed  in  answer  to  prayer  and  fast- 
ing, or  at  the  tomb  of  a  saint,  or  by  his  relics,  is  it  not  equally  a 
niracle  ?  What  right  has  any  one  to  say  that  God  must  perform 
His  miracles  in  a  particular  manner  ?  True,  the  Jews  sought 
*  sign  from  Christ,  but  He  gave  them  none.  The  Devil  chal- 
lenged Him  to  cast  Himself  from  the  pinnacle  of  the  temple, 
but  He  refused.  The  Jews  said,  "  if  thou  be  the  Son  of  God, 
come  down  from  the  cross,  and  we  will  believe  you."  But 
Christ  heeded  not  their  challenges. 

And  was  it  not  reasonable  that  He  should  have  thus  acted  ? 
Could  an  Infinite  Being  be  expected  to  consult  a  mere  creature  ? 
Certainly  not.  It  is  true,  Christ  was  bound  to  give  proper  and 
sufficient  evidence  ;  but  the  kind,  the  time,  and  the  manner,  and 
the  amount,  were  for  Him  to  decide — not  for  the  party  governed. 
It  is  enough  that  He  has  done  right,  whether  men  think  so  or 
not. 

In  reading  the  gospel  history,  we  cannot  but  be  struck  with 


270  MIRACLES. 

the  fact  that  Christ  generally,  if  not  always,  performed  His 
cures  upon  worthy  persons,  requiring  them  to  have  faith,  and 
in  many  instances  granting  the  request  of  the  applicant,  because 
of  his  faith.  "  Thy  faith  hath  made  thee  whole."  "  Be  it  unto 
thee  according  to  thy  faith."  And  we  are  told  by  Mark  that 
"  he  could  there  do  no  mighty  work,  save  that  he  laid  his 
hands  upon  a  few  sick  folk,  and  healed  them."  And  Matthew 
says  in  reference  to  the  same  matter :  "  And  he  did  not  many 
mighty  works  there,  because  of  their  unbelief."  And  it  was 
also  true  of  the  apostles.  Their  miracles  were  usually  performed 
upon  worthy  objects,  except  in  some  cases  to  inflict  punishment, 
as  in  the  cases  of  Ananias  and  Sapphira,  and  Elymas  the  sor- 
cerer. 

When  I  was  a  Deist,  this  conduct  of  Christ,  in  praising  and 
rewarding  every  confiding  display  of  faith,  was  with  me  a  se- 
rious objection.  I  said :  "  This  conduct  is  precisely  such  as  we 
must  expect  of  an  impostor,  as  faith  is  the  very  element  of  his 
success."  But  reflection  satisfied  me  that  there  was  nothing  in 
this  plausible  objection.  And  in  arriving  at  this  latter  conclu- 
sion, I  adopted  a  rule  that  I  have  uniformly  followed,  and  one 
that  I  conceive  is  just  and  true  in  itself.  It  is  this :  I  first  in- 
quire if  the  proposition  to  be  proved  be  possible.  If  possible, 
then  I  take  the  proposition  as  true  for  the  sake  of  the  argument 
only,  and  inquire  if  such  conduct  be  compatible  with  the  truth 
of  the  proposition,  and  consistent  with  it,  under  the  existing 
circumstances.  This  rule  forced  me  to  admit,  that  if  Christ 
were  a  Divine  teacher,  He  would  naturally  require  faith  in  the 
truths  He  taught ;  and  that  such  conduct  was  as  natural  in  a 
true,  as  in  a  false  teacher ;  and  of  itself,  therefore,  proved  noth- 
ing, for  or  against  the  truth  of  Christianity. 

Another  reflection  is,  that  the  gift  of  miracles  was  only 
promised  by  Christ  to  true  faith.  The  promise  is  conditional. 
And  it  must  also  be  conceded  that  a  man  may  have  faith  at  one 
time,  and  not  at  another.  The  apostles  could  not  heal  the  lu- 
natic child  for  want  of  faith,  and  Peter  sank  in  the  waves  be- 
cause of  doubt,  and  this  doubt  was  produced  by  momentary 
causes.  It  must  also  be  admitted,  that  the  frequency  of  mira- 
cles must,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  depend  upon  the  object  for 
which  they  are  performed.  Therefore,  the  simple  fact  that  they 


MIRACLES.  271 

are  not  so  frequent  at  one  time  as  another,  is  no  objection.  They 
may  not  be  as  necessary  at  one  time  and  place  as  at  another. 
Certainly  Christ  performed  few  miracles  among  his  own  kindred, 
because  of  their  unbelief.  We  are  not  competent  to  judge  as 
to  when,  how,  or  where,  or  upon  whom,  or  by  whom,  God  will 
perform  a  miracle.  No  man  hath  known  the  mind  of  the  Lord, 
as  St.  Paul  affirms. 

Another  reflection  is,  that  the  apostles  were  chosen  witnesses 
of  God,  as  well  as  teachers.  To  prove  their  competency  as  in- 
spired witnesses,  frequent  miracles  were  required.  In  the  be- 
ginning, when  the  only  question  was  the  truth  of  Christianity, 
and  not  which  is  the  true  Church,  no  miracles  could  be  required 
to  prove  this  latter  fact.  We  have  no  instance  mentioned  in 
the  New  Testament,  where  miracles  were  wrought  by  the  relics 
of  departed  saints ;  but  we  are  told  miracles  were  wrought  by 
aprons  and  handkerchiefs  taken  from  Paul,  and  by  the  shadow 
of  Peter,  as  also  by  the  touch  of  Christ's  garment.  True, 
these  appertained  to  living  persons ;  but  even  upon  abstract 
reasoning,  were  that  to  govern  us,  it  is  difficult  to  say  that 
relics  could  not  produce  the  same  result,  as  the  saint  to  whom 
they  belonged  is  only  gone  home,  and  still  lives,  but  in  a  perfect 
state.  But  in  the  case  of  the  dead  man  brought  to  life  by  the 
touch  of  the  prophet  Elisha's  bones,  (2  Kings  xiii.,)  we  have  a 
positive  example. 

If,  then,  the  object  be  to  point  out  and  illustrate  the  true 
church,  a  miracle  wrought  by  the  relics,  or  at  the  tomb,  of  a 
particular  saint,  would  accomplish  that  purpose  as  efficiently 
as  if  performed  by  the  saint  while  living.  Upon  abstract  prin- 
ciples there  can  be  no  objection,  it  would  seem.  As  to  the 
manner,  or  the  agent  by  which  a  supernatural  event  is  pro- 
duced, there  can  be  no  difference.  The  alleged  miracles  per- 
formed at  the  tombs,  or  by  the  relics  of  saints,  are  just  as  easy 
of  detection,  as  if  performed  in  other  modes.  It  is  no  more  ob- 
jection to  such  miracles  than  it  would  be  to  the  miracle  of  Christ 
in  opening  the  eyes  of  the  blind  man  with  the  spittle  and  clay, 
or  opening  the  ears  of  the  deaf,  by  putting  his  fingers  into  them. 
The  modes  used  by  Christ  were  various.  When  he  wished  a 
piece  of  money  to  pay  tribute,  instead  of  creating  it  at  once,  he 
sent  Peter  to  cateh  a  fish,  in  the  mouth  of  which  he  found  it. 


272  MIRACLES. 

Doubtless  the  Jews  thought  the  ceremony  of  anointing  the  eyes 
of  the  blind  man  with  spittle  and  clay,  exceedingly  foolish  and 
vulgar. 

But  I  apprehend  such  objections  are  not  entitled  to  much 
consideration.  The  satisfactory  proof  of  one  single  miracle  will 
answer  them  ah1.  Miracles  aiford  a  fund  of  amusement  and 
ridicule  to  the  unbelieving,  the  volatile,  and  the  unfeeling. 
But  to  the  sober,  sincere,  and  patient  inquirer,  they  will  wear 
another  aspect.  The  Scriptures  are  full  of  all  sorts  of  miracles, 
great  and  small,  sublime  and  ridiculous,  as  judged  by  some. 
Many  were  performed,  apparently  for  very  trifling  purposes. 
But  we  know  not  God's  purposes. 

In  reference  to  Catholic  miracles,  Dr.  Paley  says :  "  It  has 
long  been  observed,  that  Popish  miracles  happen  in  Popish 
countries  ;  that  they  make  no  converts." 

I  have  often  observed,  that  when  some  writers  wish  to  state 
a  matter,  for  which  they  cannot  vouch,  and  yet  wish  to  get  the 
benefit  of  it,  they  introduce  it  in  this  way :  "  It  is  said  or  ob- 
served." That  it  has  been  so  said  is  no  doubt  true ;  but  the 
saying  itself  is  untrue.  The  statement  is  general,  and  simply 
says :  "  Popish  miracles  happen  in  Popish  countries  ; "  which 
means  they  never  happen  elsewhere.  It  will  be  easily  seen, 
upon  examination,  whether  this  statement  be  true,  in  reference 
to  either  particular.  And  in  reference  to  the  specifications  and 
historical  proofs  of  the  Catholic  miracles,  I  must  refer  to  Dr. 
Milner's  End  of  Controversy,  Butler's  Lives  of  the  Saints,  Dr. 
Hay  on  Miracles,  and  the  works  of  Bishop  England,  having  al- 
ready given  to  this  subject  all  the  space  I  can  spare.  In  the 
work  of  Dr.  Milner,  which  is  easily  obtained,  the  reader  will  find 
a  condensed,  but  very  able  enumeration  of  Catholic  miracles, 
and  the  proofs  in  support  of  them,  as  well  as  a  most  masterly 
exposure  of  the  false  theories,  and  misstatements  of  different 
Protestant  writers,  upon  the  subject  of  miracles.  The  work  of 
Dr.  Hay  is  a  full  and  clear  discussion  of  the  whole  subject.  In 
Butler's  Lives  of  the  Saints,  the  miracles  performed  by  particu- 
lar persons,  are  stated.  In  Bishop  England's  works,  a  statement 
of  recent  miracles,  and  the  proofs  to  sustain  them,  will  be 
found. 


CHAPTER   VII. 

THESE  BEING  THE  CHARACTERISTICS,  OR  MARKS  OF  THE 
TRUE  CHURCH,  WHICH  OF  THOSE  CLAIMING  TO  BE 
THE  TRUE  CHURCH  IS  IN  FACT  SUCH? 

§  1.   Can  the  Protestant  Churches,  singly  or  combined,  be  the 
true  Church? 

THE  question  embraced  within  the  heading  of  this  chapter, 
has  already  been  considered  in  part.  A  few  additional  consid- 
erations will  be  submitted. 

While  Protestants  deny  that  the  true  visible  Church  is  infal- 
lible, they  generally  concede  that  she  is  so  protected  by  Divine 
power,  that  she  remains  always  the  true  visible  Church,  always 
teaching  the  true  faith.  What  difference  there  can  be  between 
such  certain  and  unfailing  protection  and  infallibility,  it  is  most 
difficult  to  see.  Nor  can  it  be  well  seen,  how  the  theory  of  a  true 
visible  church,  always  teaching  the  truth,  can  be  reconciled 
with  the  right  of  private  interpretation  in  the  last  resort.  It 
would  seem  that  such  a  Church  should  be  implicitly  heard  when 
she  speaks,  as  she  always,  in  the  contemplation  of  this  theory, 
speaks  the  truth. 

We  have  already  given  the  admissions  of  Dr.  Spring,  Mr. 
Breckenridge,  and  of  Mr.  Rice,  and  shall  give  those  of  the  early 
Reformers.  The  principle  is  distinctly  admitted,  that  when  the 
Church  should  teach  error,  the  gates  of  hell  would  prevail 
against  her,  and  the  promises  of  Christ  would  necessarily  fail. 
From  this  admission  two  conclusions  necessarily  follow : 

1.  That  the  true  Church  could  never  teach  error. 
25 


274:  WHICH    IS   THE   TRUE    CHUKCH  ? 

2.  That  she  must  remain  visible  and  teaching  from  her  birth 
to  her  final  consummation. 

It  would  then  seem  to  be  a  very  plain  proposition,  that 
whatever  existing  party  of  professed  Christians  claims  to  be  the 
true  Church,  must  show  a  continued  line  of  ancestors  to  the 
age  of  the  apostles.  Under  the  admissions  of  all  parties,  the 
title  to  the  true  Church  has  always  resided  in  some  one.  As 
we  cannot  conceive  of  the  continued  fulfilment  of  the  promises 
of  Christ,  without  the  continued  existence  of  the  same  Church, 
always  teaching  the  same  faith,  and  united  under  one  govern- 
ment, as  was  the  case  in  the  days  of  the  apostles,  so,  it  follows, 
that  the  party  who  claims  this  identity,  must  trace  the  title  back 
through  the  same  continued  and  existing  association.  We  can- 
not conceive  how,  consistently  with  the  nature  and  purposes  of 
the  institution  and  promises  of  Christ,  the  Church  could  die, 
and  be  buried,  and  afterwards  arise  from  the  dead,  in  another 
age,  and  commence  her  interrupted  career  again.  The  Church, 
in  the  days  of  the  apostles,  was  unquestionably  a  visible,  teach- 
ing, governing,  united  association  of  living  men.  She  possesses  all 
the  vital  elements  of  continued  existence  ;  and,  in  the  contempla- 
tion of  the  theory  of  our  Lord,  is  a  glorious  institution,  which 

"  Spreads  undivided — operates  unspent." 

The  parties  have  conceded  certain  things  upon  the  record, 
and,  among  them,  are  these : 

1.  That  Christ  did  organize  a  perpetual,  visible,  and  united 
association  of  men,  called  "  The  Church." 

2.  That  He  gave  to  this  Church  a  law  for  its  government, 
communicated  in  human  language. 

3.  That  He  promised  His  unfailing  protection  to  this  Church, 
hi  fulfilling  all  the  duties  prescribed  by  the  law. 

4.  That  such  protection  has  always  been  given,  and  such  an 
institution  has  always  existed. 

The  concession  of  these  facts  is,  in  truth,  a  substantial  settle- 
ment of  the  whole  question,  as  to  the  Protestant  claims. 

As  each  party  claims  the  right  to  the  same  thing,  and  to  be 
now  in  possession  of  it,  the  weight,  or  onus  of  proof,  will  lie 
equally  upon  each,  in  the  first  instance.  But  as  the  Catholic 
Church  is  admitted  to  be  older  than  any  now  existing  party, 


WHICH    IS   THE    TRUE   CHURCH?  275 

she  has  made  out  aprimafacie  case,  liable,  it  is  true,  to  be  dis- 
proved ;  but  until  disproved,  must  be  held  good,  as  against 
them.  She  has,  therefore,  nothing  to  do  until  the  title  can  be 
shown,  prima  facie,  to  be  in  some  other  party,  extending  back 
beyond  the  period  of  her  admitted  existence.  As  the  title  can 
only  exist  in  one  party  exclusively,  when  title  is  shown  to  be  in 
one,  it,  of  necessity,  excludes  all  others,  until  the  proof  is  over- 
come by  other  testimony. 

But  the  Protestant  sects,  at  the  threshold,  are  met  by  a  very 
great  difficulty.  They  must  appear  in  some  definite  and  certain 
form.  Their  claim  must  be  based  upon  something  tangible  and 
consistent  with  itself.  They  can  assume  any  form  and  shape 
they  please,  so  it  is  not  multifarious  and  contradictory.  But 
when  they  do  assume  a  certain  shape,  they  must  sustain  it  by 
competent  proof.  Their  allegations  and  their  proofs  must  cor- 
respond. They  cannot  allege  one  thing,  and  prove  another. 
They  can  make  their  alleged  true  Church  consist  of  any  con- 
sistent requisites  they  please ;  but  their  proofs  must  correspond 
and  show  the  continued  existence  of  a  church  possessing  these 
requisites. 

The  question  then  arises,  What  requisites  shall  they  claim, 
as  making  up  the  true  Church  ?  If  each  Protestant  sect  claims 
to  be  the  exclusive  true  Church,  it  necessarily  rejects  all  the 
others.  If,  on  the  contrary,  two  or  more  combine,  the  alleged 
true  Church  is  composed  of  multifarious,  contradictory,  and  in- 
dependent creeds ;  and  their  allegations  are  confused  and  incon- 
sistent. In  what  shape,  then,  shah1  they  appear  ?  And  if  the 
Protestant  Church,  thus  composed,  is  still  claimed  to  be  the  one 
true  Church,  what  differences  and  discords  could  constitute 
separate  and  antagonistic  Churches  ? 

And  if  they  conclude  to  combine  two  or  more  different 
creeds  in  making  up  the  Church,  then  what  creeds  shall  be  com- 
bined ? 

If  we  suppose  that  the  first  Protestant  party  is  composed  of 
those  sects,  called  by  some  Orthodox  or  Evangelical,  such  as 
Lutherans,  Presbyterians,  Moravians,  Methodists,  Baptists,  Epis- 
copalians, and  others,  what  a  strange  and  singular  true  Church 
this  would  be,  as  compared  with  the  confessions  of  all  parties ! 
Different  and  contradictory  doctrines — separate,  independent, 


276  WHICH   IS   THE   TRUE   CHUKCH  ? 

and  distinct  organizations,  with  no  common  governmental  head, 
composing  the  One  united  visible  Church  of  the  apostolic 
day  !  !  !  It  might  well  be  said  of  such  an  artificial  being,  that 
it  "  was  without  form  and  void." 

But  the  greatest  difficulty  would  be  this  :  As  they  say  the 
true  Church  is  at  present  composed  of  these  materials,  so  it 
must  have  been  originally,  and  at  all  times,  from  the  days  of  the 
apostles  till  the  present  era.  Having  assumed  this  distinctive 
shape,  made  up  and  composed  of  certain  contradictory  doctrines, 
and  of  many  independent  and  distinct  church  governments,  all 
acting  separately,  each  for  itself  alone,  with  no  visible  union  or 
dependence  one  upon  another,  or  of  each  upon  the  whole,  they 
must  find  ancestors  composed  of  like  heterogeneous  materials. 
They  must  find  a  church,  existing  at  all  times,  composed  of  par- 
ties separately  governed,  professing  the  same  contradictory 
creeds.  Where,  then,  can  they  find  such  a  church  ?  No  such 
conglomeration  of  sects  existed  at  the  dawn  of  the  Reformation, 
or  at  any  other  period. 

If,  on  the  contrary,  in  opposition  to  the  provisions  of  the 
creeds  themselves,  we  hold  all  their  differences  as  only  about 
immaterial  matters  ;  and  that,  in  reference  to  such  points,  Christ 
made  no  revelation  at  all,  then  we  reduce  the  articles  of  faith 
to  a  very  small  and  insignificant  number,  and  crowd  the  system 
into  very  narrow  limits,  with  the  moral  certainty  of  having  soon 
to  remodel  it  again.  And  after  we  have  done  this,  then  they 
must  still  find  ancestors  who  held,  at  all  times,  the  same  doc- 
trines that  this  new-modelled  Church  is  now  assumed  to  hold, 
and  composed  of  the  same  independent  fragments,  separated 
from  each  other  upon  mere  immaterial  questions.  Where, 
then,  could  they  be  found?  No  such  church  existed  at  the 
dawn  of  the  Reformation,  or  before. 

If  we  then  take  each  Protestant  party,  as  claiming  to  be  the 
exclusive  true  church,  still  the  ancestors  must  be  found.  And 
where  can  they  be  found  ?  The  Vaudois  held  several  funda- 
mental tenets,  that  no  Protestant  sect  could  stand  ;  and,  as  we 
shall  see,  the  few  that  remained,  when  they  joined  the  Calvin- 
ists,  had  to  renounce  certain  errors.  So  of  the  Bohemian  Breth- 
ren. And  these  two  sects  only  extended  back  a  small  portion 
of  the  way.  About  nine  centuries  remain  to  be  filled  up.  And 


WHICH  18  THE  TRUE  CHURCH?  277 

how  can  this  be  done  ?  Only  by  filling  up  the  chasm  according 
to  Mr.  Breckenridge's  new  method  of  supplying  the  defective 
records  of  history,  by  individual  construction  of  the  Scriptures. 

And  if  there  was  any  true  Church  in  the  world,  at  the  time 
of  the  Reformation,  other  than  the  Catholic  Church,  it  was  the 
unquestioned  duty  of  Luther  and  all  Protestants  to  join  that 
Church,  not  reform  it.  Could  they  not  find  it  ?  If  they  could 
not,  how  could  others  find  it  ?  And  if  no  one  could  find  it, 
what  sort  of  a  true,  visible,  universal  Church  was  it  ?  They 
found  the  Vaudois,  but  they  could  not  endure  their  admitted 
errors.  What  right  had  they,  under  the  admissions  of  all  par- 
ties, to  organize  another  true  Church,  when  -one  already  exist- 
ed ?  If  the  errors  of  the  Vaudois  were  trifling,  why  were  they 
required  to  recant  ?  And  when  jnen  tell  us,  in  one  breath,  that 
the  true  Church  must  be  visible  and  perpetual,  and  that  at  the 
date  of  the  Reformation,  there  did  exist  such  a  church  some- 
where, and  that  such  was  the  Vaudois ;  and  then,  in  the  next 
breath,  tell  us  they  held  doctrines  never  taught  by  the  law  of 
Christ,  and  that  their  true  Church  needed  reform  itself;  what 
can  we  believe?  How  can  we  put  these  two  contradictory 
theories  together  ?  If  they  had  assured  us  that  there  was  a 
true  false  Church,  we  could  have  understood  them  just  as  well. 
The  man  was  a  good  honest  fellow.  True,  he  did  steal  six  calves. 

And  truly  did  Luther  say :  "  I  stood  alone."  And  if  the 
Catholic  Church  be  not  the  true  Church,  then  truly  did  the 
Book  of  Homilies  of  the  Church  of  England,  say :  "  So  that 
clergy  and  laity,  learned  and  unlearned,  all  ages,  sects,  and  de- 
grees of  men,  women,  and  children,  of  whole  Christendom,  (a 
horrible  and  dreadful  thing  to  think,)  have  been  at  once  drowned 
in  abominable  idolatry,  of  all  other  vices  most  detested  of  God, 
and  most  damnable  to  man,  and  that  by  the  space  of  eight  hun- 
dred years  and  more — to  the  destruction  and  subversion  of  all 
good  religion  universally."  Book  of  Homilies,  (Horn.  8,  p.  261, 
ed.  of  So.  for  Propagating  Christian  Knowledge,)  pronounced,  in 
the  35th  of  the  39  articles,  "to  contain  goodly  and  wholesome 
doctrine,  and  necessary  for  these  times." 

And  really  this  is  candid  and  manly  language.  It  is  full, 
definite,  and  certain.  There  is  no  studied  ambiguity — no  cow- 
ardly evasion.  It  does  not  "  palter  iu  £.  double  sense."  It 


278  WHICH    IS    THE    TRUE    CHURCH? 

comes  up  to  the  precise  point.  It  does  not  attempt  to  mock 
and  degrade  your  understanding,  by  pretending  the  existence 
of  true  ancestors,  that  never  could  be  found.  It  admits  there 
were  none.  It  speaks  boldly,  and  tells  a  plain  story.  There  is 
no  concealment — no  prevarication.  And  truly,  it  was  "  a  hor- 
rible and  dreadful  thing  to  think "  that  Christ  had  forgotten 
His  promises.  And  truly,  if  Protestantism  be  true,  it  is  based 
upon  "  a  horrible  and  dreadful "  state  of  case. 

The  idea  that  there  was  a  visible  teaching  Church,  and  yet 
that  such  a  Church  could  fail,  would  seem  entirely  inconsistent 
with  the  purposes  of  its  organization,  with  the  character  of 
Christ  as  a  Divine  Lawmaker,  and  with  His  actual  promises. 
Such  a  supposition  is  based  upon  the  incorrect  idea,  that  it  was 
necessary  for  Christ  to  make  a  law  and  organize  a  Church — that 
having  exhausted  His  powers  in  the  effort,  or  become  otherwise 
employed,  or  for  some  other  reason,  He  cast  the  Church  upon 
the  earth,  as  a  vessel  in  the  middle  of  the  ocean  without  a  pilot ; 
and  having  retired  to  His  apartments,  He  said,  "  Let  her  travel." 

And  the  idea  that  the  true  Church  could  teach  any  single 
error  and  remain  the  true  Church — that  she  could  be  reformed 
in  matters  of  faith — or  that  she  could  be  composed  of  contra- 
dictory creeds,  and  distinct,  separate,  independent  antagonistic 
organizations,  would  seem  entirely  illogical,  and  untrue  in  every 
particular.  And  we  could  just  as  readily  believe  that  mere 
chance  was  the  originator  and  projector 

"  Of  all  the  wondrous  worlds  we  see," 

as  that  any  union  could  continue  to  exist  in  any  association 
of  men,  under  the  Protestant  principle  of  individual  interpreta- 
tion in  the  last  resort.  And  as  chance  may  undo  to-morrow 
what  it  has  done  to-day,  such  unity,  if  it  should,  by  the  merest 
possible  accident,  exist  at  any  one  point  of  time,  could  never  be 
fixed  and  secure. 

Taking  the  admissions  of  the  parties  as  I  find  them,  I  am 
forced  to  conclude,  that  the  Protestant  sects,  taken  separately, 
or  all  combined,  or  in  different  combined  parties,  have  each  and 
all  wholly  failed  in  showing  any  title  to  be  called  the  true 
Church.  And  before  they  can  make  any  consistent  case,  they 
must  go  back  and  amend  their  allegations — begin  again  at  the 


WHICH    18    THE   TRUE   CHURCH?  279 

beginning — withdraw  their  admissions — deny  that  Christ  was 
any  lawgiver — that  any  visible,  universal,  teaching  Church  was 
ever  intended — and  insist  that  Christ  promulgated  no  law,  and 
organized  no  Church,  but  that  He  merely  discovered  pre-exist- 
ing truths,  before  undiscovered,  and  that,  like  any  other  phi- 
losopher, He  left  the  truths  He  discovered,  to  be  taught  by 
those  who  pleased,  and  in  the  manner  they  pleased.  This  theo 
ry  would  at  least  be  consistent  with  itself. 

And  well  may  Mr.  Campbell  say :  "  Protestants  have  all 
conceded  too  much  in  every  age  and  period  of  this  controversy." 
(D.  C.  &  P.,  49.) 

And  this  is  true  in  one  sense,  and  may  not  be  true,  in  an- 
other. They  have  certainly  conceded  too  much  for  their  cause, 
and  may  have  conceded  too  little  for  the  truth.  And  while 
Mr.  Campbell  endeavored  to  correct  this  error,  and  himself  con- 
ceded less,  and  disputed  more,  than  other  Protestants,  he,  too, 
so  far  as  I  am  competent  to  judge,  "  conceded  too  much."  I 
apprehend  that  iuture  controvertists  will  say  the  same  of  him 
that  he  said  of  his  predecessors.  When  I  first  read  the  debate 
between  him  and  Bishop  Purcell,  this  passage  struck  me  with 
great  force.  And  in  my  investigations  afterwards,  I  could  well 
see  how  true  it  was  in  the  sense  I  have  indicated. 

§  2.  Have  the  promises  of  Christ  failed '  f 
From  the  reasons  and  proofs  heretofore  given,  the  question 
was  reduced,  in  my  judgment,  to  this — have  the  promises  of 
Christ  failed  ?  Is  there  any  true  Church  now  in  the  world  ? 
And  if  it  cannot  now  be  found  in  the  only  Church  that  can  show 
a  continued  and  uninterrupted  existence,  extending  back  to  the 
days  of  the  apostles,  then  it  can  surely  be  found  nowhere  on 
earth.  It  is  an  institution  that  was,  and  is  not. 

It  was  a  matter  of  the  first  importance,  as  I  conceived,  to 
know  what  powers  and  prerogatives  the  Catholic  Church  had 
always  claimed;  for  to  my  mind  it  was  clear  that  the  true  Church 
must  always  know  herself — know  her  duty — know  her  faith — 
know  her  rights — and  knowing  them,  must  always  claim  and 
assert  them.  I  could  not  conceive  how  the  true  Church  could 
lie  against  herself,  or  against  her  Divine  Founder,  by  denying 
the  truth  in  reference  either  to  herself  or  to  Christ. 


280  WHICH   IS   THE   TRUE   CHURCH  ? 

When  I  hear  a  Church  admit  that  her  creed  has  been  re- 
formed,  I  cannot  understand  how  she  can  be  the  true  Church. 
If  it  be  in  regard  to  a  matter  of  faith,  it  is  quite  clear  that  she 
concedes  that  she  cannot  be  such.  Either  she  was  right  at  first, 
or  wrong  at  last,  or  vice  versa;  and  in  either  case  she  was  not 
the  true  Church  at  one  period  of  her  existence,  and  must  fail  in 
her  connection  with  the  apostles.  And  when  I  hear  a  Church 
not  only  admit  that  her  creed  has  been  reformed,  but  that  it 
may  still  need  reforming,  and  under  her  theory  may  be  so  re- 
formed, I  cannot  understand  how  she  can  be  the  true  Church. 
If  she  claim  not  infallibility,  but  only  the  promised  protection 
of  Christ  in  another  assumed  form,  making  a  distinction  between 
the  two  ;  yet  she  ought  to  know  when  she  is  the  true  Church, 
and  when  she  has  such  protection.  What  sort  of  a  true  Church 
is  it,  that  cannot  vouch  for  her  faith — that  admits  she  may  be 
wrong,  because  she  does  not  know  the  true  faith — does  not 
know  herself — cannot  affirm  that  she  has  the  promised  protec- 
tion of  Christ — can  only  give  you  the  assurance  of  her  present, 
as  opposed,  certainly  to  her  past,  and  will  almost  as  certainly  be 
opposed  to  her  future  opinion,  that  she  is  now  in  a  state  of  fixed 
repose — that  she  has  at  last,  as  she  thinks,  arrived  at  truth, 
though  the  question  is  still  unsettled  ? 

The  Church  having  left  the  hands  of  the  apostles,  in  posses- 
sion of  the  true  faith,  and  united  in  one  government,  it  seemed 
clear  that  the  same  Church,  in  all  ages,  must  claim,  not  only  a 
continued  succession  from  the  apostles,  but  also  to  teach  the 
same  doctrines  at  all  times.  If,  then,  I  could  find  a  Church  ex- 
tending back  to  the  apostolic  days,  always  visible,  always  teach- 
ing, and  always  claiming  to  teach  the  doctrines  once  delivered 
to  the  saints,  this  fact,  of  itself,  would  constitute  a  very  power- 
ful argument  in  proving  that  such  Church  was  the  true  Church. 

It  being  conceded  that  the  Church  left  the  hands  of  the  apos- 
tles, claiming  only  the  faith  delivered,  and  that  teaching  was  the 
end  of  its  institution,  the  law  of  reason  would  always  hold  that, 
prima  facie,  the  Church  had  always  done  her  duty.  For  it  is  a 
plain  principle  of  law,  as  well  as  of  common  sense,  that  an  officer 
is  always  presumed  to  do  his  duty ;  and  he  who  alleges  the  con- 
trary, must  prove  it.  The  fact  that  officers  do  their  duty,  as  a 


WHICH   IS   THE   TKUE   CHURCH?  281 

general  rule,  throws  the  burthen  of  proof  upon  him  who  alleges 
the  contrary. 

But  in  the  case  of  the  true  Church,  under  the  Christian  the- 
ory, the  fact  that  the  true  Church  must  always  teach,  and  claim 
to  teach,  the  true  faith,  is  not  a  matter  of  simple  presumption, 
but  of  irrevocable  promise,  and  must  be  so,  if  there  be  truth  in 
the  promise  itself.  When,  therefore,  I  find  a  church  thus  ex- 
isting and  claiming  always  thus  to  teach,  I  find  a  case  made  out 
presumptively  correct.  It  is  a  prima  facie  case ;  and,  unless 
rebutted  and  overcome  by  opposing  proof,  must  stand  good. 

That  the  Catholic  Church  has  always  claimed  to  be  the  true 
Church,  and  to  teach  only  the  doctrines  she  received,  in  succes- 
sion, from  the  apostles,  is  not  denied  by  Protestants,  during  the 
period  of  her  admitted  existence.  So  long  as  they  admit  her  to 
have  existed,  so  long  do  they  admit  her  to  have  claimed  thus 
to  act.  As  to  the  alleged  period  when  the  Catholic  Church 
took  its  rise,  Protestants  are  as  much  divided  among  themselves, 
as  they  are  about  other  important  questions.  In  his  debate  with 
Bishop  Purcell,  Mr.  Campbell  at  first  fixed  this  period  at  A.  D. 
1054,  but  subsequently  fixed  the  time  of  the  commencement  of 
the  degeneracy  of  the  Roman  diocese,  and  the  separation  of  the 
true  from  the  "  grievously  contaminated  "  Church  about  the 
year  two  hundred  and  fifty.  But  in  his  debate  with  Mr.  Rice, 
some  few  years  afterwards,  Mr.  C.  further  extended  the  exist- 
ence of  the  Church  of  Rome  to  the  second  century.  "  Taylor 
and  others,"  he  says,  "  have  shown  that  all  the  abominations  of 
Popery  were  hatched  in  the  second  century."  (Debate  C.  &  R., 
423.)  Mr.  Rice  says :  u  During  the  first  five  centuries  of  the 
Christian  era,  the  church,  though  becoming  gradually  corrupt, 
did  not  become  Papists."  (Id.,  298.)  Mr.  Rice,  I  believe,  gives 
the  Catholic  Church  about  as  late  a  beginning  as  any  other  Prot- 
estant. By  the  admissions  of  all,  she  is  at  least  a  thousand  years 
older  than  any  of  the  existing  Protestant  sects.  She  has,  then, 
an  admitted  visible  existence  for  the  period  of  thirteen,  out  of 
the  eighteen  hundred  years  of  the  Christian  era.  But  the  cele- 
brated Dr.  Middleton,  in  his  Free  Enquiry,  as  the  extracts  I 
have  already  given  will  show,  at  first  contends  that  the  chief 
corruptions  of  Popery,  as  he  calls  them,  were  introduced  in  the 
third,  fourth,  and  fifth  centuries.  He  says  that  those  Protestant 


282  WHICH   IS   THE   TRUE   CHURCH? 

authors,  as  Tillotson,  Marshall,  Dodwell,  Dr.  "Waterland,  Dr 
Berriman,  and  others,  who  admit  that  miracles  continued  during 
the  first  three  centuries,  unwarily  betrayed  the  Protestant  cause. 
After  stating  that  "  every  one  must  see  what  a  resemblance  the 
principles  and  practices  of  the  fourth  century,  as  they  are  de- 
scribed by  the  most  eminent  Fathers  of  that  age,  bear  to  the 
present  rites  of  the  Popish  Church,"  he  says:  " By  granting  the 
Romanists  but  a  single  age  of  miracles,  after  the  time  of  the 
apostlsfi^  we  shall  be  entangled  in  a  series  of  difficulties  whence 
we  can  never  fairly  extricate  ourselves,  till  we  allow  the  same 
powers  also  to  the  present  age."  (Cited  Milner's  End  of  Con- 
troversy, Let.  xxii.) 

This,  I  must  say  again,  is  candid  and  manly  language.  The 
renowned  Dr.  Middleton  was  a  man  of  clear  head,  and  too  bold 
not  to  say  what  was  necessary  to  sustain  his  case,  and  make  it 
at  least  apparently  consistent  with  itself.  The  admission  is  very 
clearly  made  that  it  would  not  do  to  admit  that  miracles  con- 
tinued after  the  apostles,  for  the  reason  that  it  would  be  betray- 
ing the  Protestant  cause  to  the  Romanists.  He  insists  that  the 
Romanists  must  not  be  granted  "  a  single  age  of  miracles  after 
the  time  of.  the  apostles." 

But  while  Protestants  deny  that  the  Church  of  Romey  which 
has  had  an  admitted  existence  from  between  the  second  and  the 
sixth  century  to  this  time,  extended  back  to  the  very  days  of 
the  apostles,  they  have  all  admitted  the  continued  existence  of 
a  Church  visible  and  teaching,  claiming  to  teach  only  the  doc- 
trines received  from  the  apostles,  and  to  be  the  true  Church. 
Thus  the  Church  from  which  the  ISTovatians  separated  in  250, 
and  the  Donatists  in  311,  was  that  Church,  and  then  contained 
the  overwhelming  majority  of  all  Christians. 

The  existence  then  of  a  Church,  at  so  early  a  day  after  the 
apostles,  claiming  thus  to  have  received  and  thus  to  teach,  and 
to  be  the  true  Church,  will  make  out  &prima  facie  case,  until 
disproved.  Those  who  deny  that  such  a  Church  was  the  true 
Church,  and  did  so  teach,  must  then  show  some  other  Church 
that  was  this  true  Church  ;  for,  since  its  existence  is  admitted 
by  all,  and  one  party  shows  a  Church  existing  at  that  early  day, 
and  widely  extended,  claiming  so  to  be,  it  throws  the  weight  of 
proof  upon  the  party  that  disputes  its  claims.  When,  therefore, 


WHICH   18   THE   TRUE   CHURCH?  2S3 

we  are  referred  to  the  Novations  and  Donatists,  who  not  only 
separated  without  good  cause,  but  perished  and  disappeared  in 
a  few  centuries,  (as  if  the  true  Church  could  die,)  we  cannot  say 
the  claim  is  at  all  disturbed,  but  we  must  say,  it  is  strengthened, 
from  the  failure  of  proof  against  it.  The  attempt  thus  to  de- 
feat the  claims  of  the  Church,  having  the  great  mass  of  Chris- 
tians in  her  communion,  by  such  testimony,  is  a  substantiation 
of  her  claim,  as  it  shows  no  better  can  be  brought  against  it. 

If  then  the  Catholic  Church  could  not  bring  any  testimony 
to  prove  her  continued  existence,  back  to  the  days  of  the  apos- 
tles, except  the  admissions  of  her  opponents,  she  would  still 
make  out  her  case  from  them,  and  from  their  entire  failure  to 
show  where  the  true  Church  was  before  her  admitted  existence, 
and  afterwards.  For  under  the  admission  of  all  parties,  what- 
ever true  Church  did  exist  at  the  death  of  the  last  apostle, 
must  continue  to  exist.  Those,  therefore,  who  say  the  Catholic 
church  was  not  the  true  Church,  must  show  some  Church  exist- 
ing continually,  both  before  and  after  the  alleged  birth  of  that 
Church.  When,  therefore,  they  attempt  to  do  this,  by  referring 
us  to  two  sects  that  soon  disappeared,  they  certainly  fail.  But 
the  advocates  of  the  Catholic  Church,  bring  in  all  the  Christian 
writers  of  the  first  five  centuries,  from  St.  Ignatius,  the  disciple 
of  St.  John,  to  St.  Gelasius  in  492,  and  from  these  they  bring  a 
mass  of  testimony,  that  seems  entirely  conclusive.  These  testi- 
monies will  be  found  in  other  places. 

§  3.  Has  the  Catholic  Church  been  uniform  in  her  faith  f 

The  next  and  most  important  question  that  arose  in  this  in- 
quiry, was  whether  the  Catholic  Church  had  always  been  uni- 
form in  her  faith.  That  she  had  always  so  claimed,  there  could 
be  no  doubt.  That  the  presumption,  under  the  promises  of 
Christ,  as  well  as  under  the  principles  applicable  to  all  govern- 
mental institutions,  that  they  all  accomplish  the  end  intended, 
and  in  the  manner  prescribed,  would  throw  upon  her  adversa- 
ries the  »burthen  of  proof  to  the  contrary,  was  to  my  mind 
equally  clear.  This  position  I  understood  to  be  substantially 
conceded  by  Protestant  controvertists.  They,  therefore,  acting 
upon  this  ground,  make  certain  charges  of  alleged  contradictions 
in  the  creed  of  the  Church,  at  different  periods  of  her  existence. 


284:  WHICH    IS    THE   TKUE   CHURCH? 

To  examine  impartially,  and  estimate  justly,  the  force  of 
these  objections,  it  becomes  necessary  to  understand  distinctly 
what  the  Church  herself  holds  to  be  faith,  and  what  not.  I 
found,  upon  examination,  that  the  Church  herself  makes  these 
several  divisions : 

1.  There  are  articles  of  faith,  which  include  those  positive 
truths,  facts,  and  doctrines,  which  she  holds  Christ  revealed  to 
the  apostles,  and  commanded  them  and  their  successors  to  teach 
to  all  nations,  in  all  days,  even  to  the  end  of  the  world.     She 
holds  that  the  system  of  Christianity  is  made  up  of  certain  fun- 
damental truths,  facts,  and  doctrines,  that  must  be  believed  by 
all,  in  all  places,  and  at  all  times — that  they  are  of  such  a  char- 
acter, as  to  be  applicable  to  all  persons,  times,  and  places — are 
unvarying,  certain,  and  fixed,  and  must  ever  so  remain.   She  holds 
that  under  the  law  of  Christ,  there  are  certain  things  that  must  be 
believed — that  faith  is  required  by  the  system,  and  that  as  re- 
quired, it  must  exist.     As  regards  faith,  she  claims  infallibility. 

2.  Besides  articles  of  faith,  there  is  discipline,  which  is  en- 
tirely different  from  doctrine,  and  in  regard  to  which  no  infalli- 
bility is  claimed,  and  no  faith  required,  but  only  obedience  in 
act.     Discipline  consists  in  those  minor  practical  regulations  or 
rules,  which  may  vary  with  changing  circumstances,  and  may 
be  adapted  to  different  times.     They  consist  of  such  regulations 
as  are  deemed  expedient  to  facilitate  and  carry  out  the  practical 
administration  of  the  fundamental  laws  of  the  institution.    They 
are  similar  to  the  rules  adopted  by  Courts,  and  liable  to  be 
amended  or  changed  at  their  pleasure,  and  which  merely  regard 
the  mode,  time,  and  manner  in  which  parties  must  proceed  at 
their  bar. 

3.  Besides  articles  of  faith  and  discipline,  there  are  opinions. 
These  opinions  regard  questions  concerning  which  Christ  made 
no  positive  revelation,  and  the  apostles  made  no  certain  decla 
ration.     The  members  of  the  church  are  allowed  to  hold  either 
side,  in  reference  to  these  questions,  for  the  very  reason,  that 
they  are  not  matters  of  faith.     This  distinction  is  toot  new: 
The  celebrated  and  beautiful  saying  of  St.  Augustine,  so  often 
quoted  by  statesmen,  as  well  as  Catholics,  alludes  to  it :     "  In 
essentials,  let  there  be  unity — in  non-essentials  liberty — and  in 
all  things  charity." 


WHICH   IS   THE   TRUE   CHURCH?  285 

4.  There  are  besides  these,  local  customs  peculiar  to  differ- 
ent countries  and  ages.  These  regard  not  faith. 

These  distinctions  seemed  to  me  to  be  based  upon  the  na- 
ture and  reason  of  things.  I  could  not  conceive  of  any  system 
of  truth,  where  faith  was  required,  without  these  distinctions. 
Faith  must  exist — but  must  also  have  its  limits.  The  practical 
siiccess  of  every  system,  where  faith  is  required  at  all,  must  re- 
quire certain  truths  to  be  held  as  articles  of  faith,  at  all  times.;., 
and  yet  permit  the  existence  of  disciplinary  regulations,  suitable 
to  different  times  and  circumstances.  And  as  to  opinions,  we 
have  seen  that  St.  Paul  in  his  epistles  clearly  allows  them  to  ex- 
ist in  reference  to  matters  held  indifferent,  such  as  keeping  cer- 
tain days,  eating  meats,  or  living  on  vegetables  alone.  All  he 
requires,  in  reference  to  such  matters,  is,  that  each  person  shall 
be  sincere,  and  not,  therefore,  act  against  his  own  conscience, 
and  in  that  way  commit  a  sin. 

So  far  as  I  could  ascertain,  these  distinctions  are  substan- 
tially recognized  by  Protestants.  Thus  Mr.  Campbell  says, 
speaking  of  the  controversy  of  the  Novatians  in  250  :  "  It  was, 
indeed,  a  controversy  about  the  purity  of  communion,  and  dis- 
cipline, rather  than  about  articles  of  doctrine."  (Deb.  C.  &  P., 
66.)  And  in  reference  to  the  same  subject,  Mr.  Rice  says : 
"Every  system  of  truth  has  its  fundamental  principles,  which 
are  essential  to  it,  and  minor  points,  in  regard  to  which  those 
holding  the  same  system,  may  differ."  (Deb.  C.  &  R.,  885.) 

The  charges  of  Protestants  against  the  uniformity  of  the 
Catholic  Church,  may  be  classed  as  follows  : 

1.  Those  which  relate  to  alleged  divisions  always  existing  in 
the  Church. 

2.  Those  which  relate  to  the  alleged  introduction  of  new  ar- 
ticles, never  held  before,  being  alleged  additions  to  the  faith. 

3.  Those  which  relate  to  alleged  contradictory  decisions  of 
the  Church  in  reference  to  the  same  articles  of  faith. 

The  first  objection  coming  under  the  first  class,  as  divided 
above,  is  that  Catholics  are  not  agreed  as  to  where  infallibility 
is  lodged.  While  they  all  agree  that  it  resides  in  the  Church, 
there  exists  a  difference  of  opinion  as  to  what  particular  de- 
partment of  the  Church  it  was  committed.  Some  hold  it  as  a 
matter  of  opinion,  that  it  resides  with  the  Pope,  and  others  that 


286  WHICH    18    THE    TRUE    CHURCH  ? 

it  is  found  with  the  Pope  and  a  general  council  acting  together , 
or,  what  is  the  same  thing  in  substance,  with  the  Pope  and  a 
majority  of  the  Bishops,  when  united  in  the  same  judgment. 

This  objection  is  considered  of  great  importance  by  Protes- 
tants, while  Catholics  esteem  it  of  very  little  force. 

The  objection,  it  will  be  at  once  seen,  regards  not  the  exist- 
ence of  infallibility  in  the  Church,  but  simply  its  distribution. 
It  is  a  faculty  or  attribute  admitted  by  all  Catholics  to  belong 
to  the  Church,  and  the  only  question  is  as  to  where  it  is  placed. 
So  far  as  the  decision  of  the  Church  has  gone,  this  is  left  simply 
as  matter  of  opinion.  The  point  of  faith  is  the  admission  of  its 
existence  in  the  Church,  and  not  as  to  its  distribution.  In  tol- 
erating these  different  opinions  relating  to  a  matter  of  opinion, 
(as  considered  by  the  Church,)  she  is  not  chargeable  with  any 
contradiction  to  her  own  theory.  She  is  only  charged  with  not 
defining  a  question  that  Protestants  think  of  practical  impor- 
tance. They  insist  that  infallibility,  if  given  to  the  Church,  must 
have  been  given  for  practical  exercise ;  and,  therefore,  it  be- 
comes important  to  know  through  what  organ  it  speaks,  that  its 
voice  may  be  obeyed  when  heard.  The  objection  is  more  practi- 
cal than  theoretical.  It  is  one  that,  in  its  nature,  regards  practice 
more  than  faith.  If  there  be  no  practical  difficulty  in  tolerat- 
ing these  opinions  as  to  the  mere  location  of  infallibility,  there 
can  be  no  necessity  for  such  a  definition.  If  all  the  practical 
ends  contemplated  by  the  system  can  be  accomplished  without 
it,  good  sense  does  not  require  it. 

It  is  a  well-settled  rule  with  courts  of  justice,  founded  upon 
the  obvious  principles  of  good  sense,  never  to  decide  cases  not 
before  them.  If  a  judge,  in  delivering  the  opinion  of  the  Court, 
upon  a  case  then  before  it,  gives  his  opinion  upon  a  principle  of 
law  outside  the  case,  this  opinion  is  called  a  mere  dictum,  and 
is  not  regarded  as  of  any  authority.  It  is  the  mere  exparte 
opinion  of  the  judge  as  an  individual,  and  binds  no  one,  not 
even  his  own  future  action.  It  is  so  with  the  Church.  She 
only  decides  cases  when  they  arise,  and  in  reference  to  practical 
matters,  when  a  decision  becomes  of  practical  utility. 

To  make  my  meaning  clear,  I  will  give  an  illustration  which 
occurred  to  me  in  my  reflections  upon  this  subject.  We  will 
suppose  that  A  wishes  to  purchase  a  certain  tract  of  land.  He 


WHICH   IS    THE   TRUE   CHURCH  ?  287 

finds  it  exclusively  claimed  by  B,  C,  and  D.  He  finds  he  can 
purchase  all  their  separate  and  adverse  claims  for  a  price,  not 
exceeding  the  value  of  the  land,  and  he  does  so,  taking  a  con- 
veyance from  each  claimant.  We  will  suppose  that  he  takes 
possession,  and  afterwards  sells  to  E,  taking  E's  note,  upon 
time,  for  the  purchase  money,  and  delivers  E  his  bond  for  a 
warranty  deed,  when  the  note  is  paid.  E  fails  to  pay  the  note 
when  due,  and  A  sues  him ;  and  E  sets  up,  as  a  defence,  and 
says  in  his  plea  or  answer,  that  A  derived  his  title  by  separate 
deeds  from  B,  C,  and  D ;  that  he,  the  defendant,  admits  that 
title  was  in  some  one  of  these  persons  at  the  time  of  the  deeds 
to  A,  but  insists  that  A  has  not  shown  in  which  one  of  these 
three  persons  the  title  resided ;  and,  therefore,  A  could  not 
make  him  a  good  title.  Such  a  defence  would  not  be  heard, 
and  the  Court  would  not  inquire  into  the  question  of  title,  so 
long  as  it  was  admitted  that  it  resided  in  some  one  of  the  three 
persons  named,  and  that  A  had  good  deeds  from  all. 

So,  in  the  Catholic  Church.  Every  definition  of  doctrine 
and  morals  by  a  G-eneral  Council,  is  conclusive,  but  no  Council 
is  General  without  the  Pope^s  concurrence.  Therefore,  in  the 
decrees  of  every  General  Council,  there  is  the  concurrence  of 
all.  He  who  thinks  that  infallibility  resides  in  the  Pope,  must 
submit,  and  so  of  all  the  others.  So  far,  therefore,  as  these  act 
together,  there  can  be  no  difficulty.  What  practical  difficulty 
can  there  be,  in  such  a  state  of  things  ?  Until  the  Church  her- 
self shall  find  the  difficulty  to  exist,  to  such  an  extent,  as  to  call 
for  such  a  definition,  is  there  any  force  in  such  an  objection? 
She  must  judge  of  such  a  necessity ;  and  if  her  administration 
can  be  practically  carried  on,  and  all  Catholics  united  in  all  she 
decides  to  be  matter  of  faith,  it  cannot  be  said  that  Catholics 
differ  as  to  faith. 

Questions  of  this  character,  as  to  the  mere  distribution  of  pow- 
ers, are  often  discussed  in  governments  having  different  de- 
partments. They  have  occurred  in  England,  and  in  the  United 
States.  So  long  as  the  departments  act  together,  the  questions 
are  never  determined.  In  the  Treaty  of  Washington,  as  I  have 
stated,  the  question  came  up,  whether  the  President  and  Senate 
could  make  a  treaty  affecting  the  boundary  of  a  State,  without 
her  consent,  and  the  consent  of  Maine  was  had,  as  being  more 


288  WHICH    IS    THE   TRUE   CHURCH? 

safe,  and  the  question  left  where  they  found  it.  Perhaps  in  all 
coming  time,  such  an  occasion  may  not  occur  again  ;  and  should 
a  similar  occasion  occur  in  the  future,  the  difficulty  may  be  again 
avoided,  by  the  like  consent  of  all.  To  deny,  therefore,  either 
that  the  power  did  reside  in  the  government,  or  that  it  could 
be  practically  exerted,  because  there  was  some  difference  of 
opinion  among  individuals,  as  to  its  precise  location,  it  occurs 
to  me,  is  to  deny  the  positive  practical  results  of  experience, 
and  the  evident  dictates  of  reason. 

Mr.  Campbell  says  :  "  It  is  a  serious  question,  Why  is  the 
Roman  church  infallible  in  faith,  and  not  in  discipline  ?  "  (De- 
bate C.  &  P.,  162.) 

I  must  confess  I  cannot  perceive  the  force  of  the  objection. 
Why  did  Christ  reveal  matters  of  faith,  and  not  matters  of  dis- 
cipline ¥  One  must,  for  that  reason,  be  believed,  and  the  other, 
for  that  reason,  need  not.  And  for  that  reason,  in  reference  to 
faith,  infallibility  should  reside  in  the  church ;  but  as  to  disci- 
pline, it  need  not,  as  obedience  in  act,  is  all  that  is  required. 
As  discipline  depends  upon  circumstances,  and  is  liable,  there- 
fore, to  be  changed,  I  cannot  see  any  reason  for  infallibility  in 
reference  to  it,  or  how  Christ  could  have  well  made  any  reve- 
lation regarding  it.  The  promises  of  Christ  made  in  the  Com- 
mission, had  reference  to  the  truths  revealed  by  Christ  to  His 
apostles.  The  Church  would  not  properly  claim  infallibility, 
without  a  promise. 

The  fact  that  the  Church  claims  infallibility  in  reference  to 
revealed  truths,  and  not  as  to  discipline,  is,  to  my  mind,  no  ob- 
jection ;  but  on  the  contrary,  is  an  argument  in  her  favor.  It 
shows  that  her  claim  is  founded  in  reason  and  good  sense,  and 
makes  a  distinction  that  she  must  make,  if  her  claim  to  infalli- 
bility be  true.  In  my  reflections  and  inquiries  upon  this  sub- 
ject, I  have  found  a  greater  portion  of  the  arguments  used  by 
Protestants  against  the  Church,  to  be  strongly  for  her,  so  far  as 
I  was  capable  of  estimating  their  legitimate  force.  The  error 
generally  consists  in  drawing  the  wrong  conclusion. 

§  4.  The  same  subject  continued. 

In  reference  to  the  second  class  of  charges  made  by  Protes- 
tants against  the  uniformity  of  the  Church,  as  regards  faith, 


WHICH    IS    THE   TRUE   CHURCH?  289 

(and  which  relate  to  supposed  additions  to  her  articles,)  they 
are  alleged  by  Catholics  to  have  arisen  from  confounding  the 
definition  of  the  existing  faith  of  the  Church,  with  the  creation 
of  new  tenets  not  flowing  from  the  legitimate  extension  and  ap- 
plication of  admitted  principles,  but  from  the  introduction  of 
entirely  novel  and  unheard  of  principles.  In  other  words,  that 
"they  mistake  the  language  of  definition,  for  the  words  of  crea- 
tion." 

In  his  late  very  able  work,  Dr.  Ives  says :  "  This  reminds 
me  of  an  error  which,  in  the  course  of  my  examination,  showed 
itself  continually  in  Protestant  statements,  viz. :  to  date  the 
commencement  of  a  doctrine  or  practice  at  the  time,  when  from 
some  denial  or  neglect,  such  a  doctrine  or  practice  was  made 
binding  by  an  explicit  written  decree,  although  it  had  always 
existed  in  the  church."  (Trials  of  a  Mind,  124,  Note.) 

The  importance  of  these  charges,  especially  the  principles 
involved,  led  me  to  make  a  careful  examination  of  the  matter, 
so  far  as  my  opportunities  would  allow.  I  first  inquired  whether, 
in  any  association  of  men,  governed  by  a  law  promulgated  in 
human  language,  and  in  which  there  resided  any  judicial  power 
at  all,  these  definitions  would  not,  in  the  very  nature  and  rea- 
son of  the  case  itself,  most  certainly  occur,  in  the  practical  ap- 
plication of  the  law,  to  different  cases  as  they  should  arise,  in 
the  course  of  ages.  That  is,  whether  these  definitions,  decrees, 
or  decisions,  are  not  inseparable  from  all  practical  government, 
over  such  intelligences  as  men  ;  and  whether,  from  the  nature 
of  the  judicial  power,  such  definitions  could  be  avoided. 

The  people  of  the  United  States  have,  as  their  fundamental 
law,  a  Constitution.  By  this  instrument  there  is  One  Supreme 
Court,  whose  duty  it  is  to  construe  and  apply  the  laws,  consti- 
tutional and  statutory,  to  cases  that  come  before  it.  Much  dis- 
cussion arose  at  an  early  period,  as  to  the  proper  construction 
of  certain  articles  of  the  Constitution.  These  questions  still 
arise,  and  must,  in  the  nature  of  things,  arise,  in  all  future  time. 
Events  unforeseen,  will  bring  up  new  questions  from  age  to  age, 
so  long  as  the  government  shall  last.  A  very  important  amend- 
ment to  our  Constitution  was  made  in  1804  ;  and  was  occasioned 
by  a  very  unexpected  question  that  arose  in  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives, in  the  election  of  President  in  1801.  "The  eleo 


WHICH    IS    THE    TRUE    CHURCH  ? 

tion  of  1801,"  says  Chancellor  Kent,  "threatened  the  tranquil- 
lity of  the  Union  ;  and  the  difficulty  that  occurred  in  that  case, 
in  producing  a  constitutional  choice,  led  to  the  amendment  of 
the  Constitution  on  this  very  subject ;  but  whether  the  amend- 
ment be  for  the  better  or  for  the  worse,  may  well  be  doubted, 
and  remains  yet  to  be  settled  by  the  lights  of  experience." 
(1  Com,,  280.) 

And  a  concurrence  of  circumstances  may  occur  at  the  next 
Presidential  election,  that  will  fully  test,  by  "  the  lights  of  ex- 
perience," the  wisdom  of  this  amendment  to  the  Constitution, 
and  such  a  concurrence  may  not  happen  in  ten  centuries,  and 
may  then  arise.  When,  however,  it  does  occur,  it  must  give 
rise  to  new  definitions,  or  new  amendments,  or  both. 

And  as  regards  questions  of  constitutional  construction,  they 
must  hereafter  arise  in  our  courts,  as  well  as  in  our  Congress. 
Suppose,  then,  a  new  case  should  come  up  before  the  Supreme 
Court,  a  thousand  years  hence,  involving  the  construction  of  an 
article  of  the  Constitution,  and  that  Court,  by  its  solemn  deci- 
sion, should  settle  the  construction  of  that  instrument,  could 
any  sensible  man  say  that  the  Court,  in  the  contemplation  of 
our  system,  had  created  a  new  part  of  the  fundamental  law, 
simply  by  declaring  what  that  law  meant?  And  could  any 
man  of  fair  mind  and  logical  head,  say,  that  the  Constitution 
had  not  always  been  what  the  Court  declared  it  to  mean  ?  In 
other  words,  in  the  contemplation  of  our  theory,  would  the 
Constitution  itself  be  abrogated,  or  changed  in  any  particular, 
because  that  august  Court  had  given  it  a  construction  never 
given  before,  but  necessary  to  decide  a  new  case,  involving  the 
point  in  controversy?  I  apprehend  not.  On  the  contrary,  it 
would  be  admitted  that  the  Constitution  had  always  meant 
\vhat  it  is  declared  to  mean ;  and  that  such  had  always  been 
the  law.  The  power  to  declare  what  is  the  law — the  existing 
law,  is  very  different  from  the  power  to  make  a  law.  One  is 
judicial,  and  the  other  legislative — one  is  the  power  to  create, 
and  the  other  the  power  to  construe  that  which  is  already 
made. 

If,  then,  there  be  any  government  at  all  in  the  Church,  the 
judicial  power  must  reside  in  the  institution — and  if  it  does 
^xist  therein,  must  not  these  definitions  occur,  from  time  to 


WHICH    IS    THE   TRUE   CHURCH  ?  291 

time,  from  the  very  nature  of  the  power  itself?  Can  any  one 
form  a  conception  of  an  association  of  men  kept  in  unity,  and 
governed  by  a  law  communicated  in  human  language,  through 
a  long  course  of  centuries,  and  yet  without  any  necessity  for 
such  definitions  ?  I  confess  I  cannot  form  such  a  conception.  I 
cannot  possibly  imagine  what  sort  of  association,  unity,  or  gov- 
ernment it  could  be. 

Law,  properly  so  called,  is  a  rule  of  conduct  (and  in  the 
Christian  system,  of  faith  also)  prescribed  to  free  intelligent 
agents;  and  as  the  parties  governed  possess  these  characteris- 
tics, the  law  will  be  violated ;  and  not  only  so,  but  in  a  multitude 
of  instances,  of  the  most  complex  character.  This  free  agency 
of  the  governed  will  enable  them  to  violate  the  law,  and  their 
intelligence  will  allow  them  to  do  so,  in  every  variety  of  form, 
and  under  every  plausible  pretence.  Hence  continued  defini- 
tions become  inevitable,  under  any  government  of  law. 

And  did  not  such  instances  occur  in  the  days  of  the  apostles  ? 
And  have  they  not  occurred  at  intervals  ever  since.?  And 
must  they  not  occur  in  the  future  ? 

A  good  while  before  the  Council  of  Jerusalem  was  held, 
Peter  had  admitted  the  Gentile  Cornelius  and  his  household 
into  the  church.  The  true  faith  had  been  preached  over  a 
great  portion  of  the  world,  and  churches  formed  at  different 
places.  During  all  this  time  the  question  making  circumcision 
essential  to  salvation  had  not  been  raised.  Had  it  been  post- 
poned a  few  years  longer,  it  would  have  come  up  for  decision, 
after  the  death  of  the  apostles.  It  was  never  decided,  however, 
until  it  did  arise.  When,  however,  it  did  come  up,  it  was 
finally  decided,  and  the  Council  issued  its  decree,  settling  that 
case.  This  decree,  as  I  have  already  said  in  another  place,  was, 
in  my  view,  only  the  judicial  construction  and  application  of 
the  law  to  a  particular  case.  And  so,  in  reference  to  the  dis- 
sensions among  the  Corinthians,  which  were  so  unexpected,  that 
they  were  not  known  to  the  inspired  Paul,  until  informed  by 
those  of  the  house  of  Chloe.  And  so  was  the  case  of  Hymeneus 
and  Philetus,  mentioned  by  Paul  in  his  second  Epistle  to  Timo- 
thy. These  men  believed  in  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  but 
believed  it  was  already  past.  In  the  latter  particular  they  erred, 
This  was  also  a  new  case. 


292  WHICH    IS    THE    TRUE    CHURCH? 

After  the  days  of  the  apostles,  but  at  an  early  day,  the  ques- 
tion  was  first  raised,  whether  it  was  necessary  to  rebaptize  those 
who  had  apostatized,  and  then  returned  to  the  Church.  Thig 
question  could  not  have  arisen  until  some  case  brought  it  up. 
The  persecutions  of  the  early  Christians,  long,  bloody,  and  re- 
lentless as  they  were,  gave  rise  to  this  question.  Those  Chris 
tians  who  had  yielded  under  the  terrors  and  pains  of  torture, 
denied  the  iaith  and  sacrificed  to  idols,  and  afterwards  repented 
and  wished  to  return.  Must  they  be  rebaptized  ?  The  question 
was  raised  for  the  first  time,  and  for  the  first  time  it  had  to  be 
decided.  Suppose  this  persecution  had  not  arisen  for  five  hun- 
dred years  afterwards,  and  then  have  come  up.  Those  opposed 
to  rebaptizing  could  have  said,  "  We  have  never  rebaptized  any 
one  in  the  church."  The  others  could  have  answered,  "True  ; 
but  you  never  had  such  a  case  before.  This  is  a  new  case  now 
first  occurring  in  the  Church.  And  under  the  legitimate  inten- 
tion of  the  law  regarding  the  sacrament  of  baptism,  must  they 
not  be. rebaptized?  It  is  true,  that  the  apostles  never  rebap- 
tized any  one  ;  but  it  is  equally  true,  that  they  never  refused 
to  rebaptize  any  one.  No  one  apostatized  in  their  day,  and  af- 
terwards offered  to  return  to  the  Church.  The  case  never  arose 
in  their  day  that  could  bring  up  this  question." 

Now  the  question  in  such  a  case  regards  the  application  of 
admitted  principles  to  new  cases — cases  different  in  their  circum- 
stances. All  conceded  that  baptism  was  a  sacrament.  The 
only  question  was,  could  it  be  twice  administered  to  the  same 
person,  under  the  circumstances  stated  ?  And  it  was  decided 
by  the  Church,  that  rebaptizing  was  not  required. 

And  so  in  regard  to  the  Divinity  of  Christ.  Until  it  was 
denied,  and  the  question  raised,  no  express  decision  was  made 
by  a  Council.  The  moral  and  gifted  Dr.  Priestly,  to  whom 
Pope  ascribes 

"  Every  virtue  under  heaven," 

in  his  "  History  of  Early  Opinions,"  argues  that  the  Divinity  of 
Christ,  never  held,  as  he  insisted,  in  the  days  of  the  apostles, 
"  crept  in  "  as  an  "  opinion  "  a  short  time  afterwards,  spread 
silently,  became  strong,  until  at  last  it  was  enacted  into  an  ar 
tide  of  faith,  in  the  Council  of  Nice,  A.  D.  325. 


WHICH   18   THE   TRUE   CHUKCH  ?  293 

In  reference  to  this  point  St.  Augustine  says : 

"  The  dogma  of  the  Trinity  was  not  perfectly  brought  out 
till  the  Arians  declared  against  it ;  nor  was  penance,  until  at- 
tacked by  the  Novatians ;  nor  the  efficacy  of  baptism,  till  ques- 
tioned by  rebaptizers.  Nay,  what  regarded  the  unity  of  the 
body  of  Jesus  Christ  was  not  discussed  with  minute  exactness 
until  the  weak  being  exposed  to  danger  *  *  *  compelled  the 
teachers  of  truth  to  examine  those  truths  to  the  bottom.  * 
Thus  the  errors  of  heresy,  instead  of  injuring  the  Catholic 
Church,  have  really  fortified  it ;  and  those  who  thought  wrong 
were  an  occasion  of  ascertaining  those  who  thought  right. 
WTiat  had  been  but  piously  believed,  became  afterwards  fully 
understood."  (Cited  Trials  of  a  Mind,  124.) 

St.  Paul  had  expressed  the  same  consequences  as  flowing 
from  heresy,  as  did  St.  Augustine.  "  For  there  must  be  also 
heresies  among  you,  that  they  which  are  approved  may  be 
made  manifest  among  you."  (1  Cor.  xi.  19.) 

And  I  confess  that  I  could  not  see  how  it  could  be  other- 
wise. As  I  have  insisted  in  a  preceding  page,  law,  from  its 
very  nature,  only  lays  down  general  principles,  in  general  terms. 
It  cannot,  in  advance,  state  all  the  facts  and  circumstances  that 
go  to  make  up  each  individual  case.  The  general  principles 
must  then,  of  necessity,  be  applied  to  these  new  cases,  as  they 
arise.  They  cannot,  with  any  practical  propriety,  be  applied 
before  the  cases  arise.  The  cases  may  never  occur,  and  the 
definition  would  then  be  simply  idle. 

And  it  must  be  evident  to  every  one  who  has  any  practical 
knowledge  of  the  application  and  extension  of  the  principles  of 
law  to  new  cases,  that  in  proportion  to  the  number  and  varied 
character  of  these  new  cases,  so,  in  proportion,  will  be  the  num- 
ber and  character  of  the  discussions  and  decisions  in  reference 
to  the  principle  involved ;  and  so,  in  proportion,  will  the  appli- 
cation of  the  principle  be  the  better  understood.  For  the  sake 
of  illustration,  I  will  take  the  proposition  mentioned  by  Dr. 
Balguy,  that  "  Christ  is  the  author  of  eternal  salvation."  So  long 
as  the  members  of  the  Church  believed  this  proposition  in  its 
natural  sense — that  Christ  was  the  author  of  eternal  salvation, 
because  He  bore  our  sins,  in  His  own  body,  upon  the  cross — it 
would  be  wholly  unnecessary  to  make  any  definition.  There 


294:  WHICH    IS    THE    TRUE    CHURCH  ? 

could  be  no  good  sense  in  calling  a  council  to  define  that  which 
had  never  been  disputed,  had  always  been  believed  and  taught, 
and  which  might  never  be  disputed.  But  suppose,  in  the  course 
of  time,  certain  persons  raise  the  question  whether  Christ  saves 
us  by  the  atonement,  or  simply  by  His  example.  The  Church 
would  then  call  upon  the  parties  and  ask,  "  Do  you  believe  that 
Christ  is  the  author  of  eternal  salvation  ?  "  They  would  all  an- 
swer "  Yes."  The  Church  would  then  ask,  "  In  what  sense  ?  " 
They  would  answer,  "  By  His  example."  Here  is  a  new  sense 
given  to  the  proposition  ;  and  the  Church  must  then  determine, 
whether  the  general  proposition  itself  can  tolerate  such  an  ex- 
tension and  application  of  its  principles. 

And  Protestants,  while  they  make  this  objection,  seem  sensi- 
ble of  its  entire  unreasonableness ;  and,  in  their  own  practice, 
act  upon  the  principle  themselves,  though  contrary  to  their  fun- 
damental rule.  The  late  divisions  in  the  Methodist  body  in  the 
United  States,  into  North  and  South,  in  consequence  of  the  dif- 
ferent views  regarding  slavery,  may  be  mentioned  as  an  illustra- 
tion. I  apprehend,  that  if  no  Methodist  had  ever  been  a  slave 
owner,  the  question  would  not  have  been  determined,  as  to 
whether  slavery  was  a  sin  or  not.  They  would  have  said : 
"  Sufficient  unto  the  day  is  the  evil  thereof;  we  will  determine 
that  question  when  it  comes  up." 

And  Mr.  Campbell  seems  also  to  act  upon  it.  In  reference 
to  "  a  roll  some  five  feet  long,  charged  75  cents  extra  franking 
privilege,"  and  received  from  "  one  of  his  once  much  esteemed 
friends  and  fellow  laborers,"  containing  the  views  of  the  writer 
upon  certain  points,  and  asking  the  liberty  of  discussing  them 
in  the  pages  of  the  Harbinger,  Mr.  C.,  after  other  remarks, 
says :  "  May  we  not  hence  conclude,  that  there  is  yet  need  of 
further  investigation  on  these  subjects,  or  of  yet  more  clearly 
ascertaining  what  may  or  may  not  be  discussed,  in  Christian 
communities,  under  the  plea  of  Christian  liberty,  and  freedom 
of  debate?"  (Harbinger  Extra,  Dec.  1844,  p.  616,617.)  This 
new  case  seems  to  have  brought  up  very  forcibly  the  necessity 
"  of  yet  more  clearly  ascertaining  what  may  or  may  not  be  dis- 
cussed in  Christian  communities."  It  satisfied  Mr.  C.  that  a 
further  definition  was  necessary. 

When  I  first  read  this  objection  made  by  Mr.  Campbell  in 


WHICH    16    THE    TRUE    CHURCH?  295 

his  debate  with  Bishop  Purcell,  and  so  much  relied  upon  by 
him,  as  well  as  by  all  Protestant  controvertists  whose  works  I 
have  read,  I  could  not  but  regard  it  as  of  very  great  importance, 
either  against  or  for  the  Catholic  Church.  The  objection  had 
substance  in  it,  in  one  way  or  the  other.  If,  in  the  nature  and 
reason  of  the  Christian  system,  such  new  definitions  were  not 
required,  but  prohibited,  then  the  objection  was  legitimate 
against  the  Church.  But  on  the  contrary,  if  such  new  defini- 
tions must  occur  from  the  nature  of  the  system,  and  the  parties 
governed,  then  it  was  a  most  powerful  argument  for  the  Church, 
as  it  would  then  show  that  she  had,  in  fact,  throughout  the 
long  course  of  her  history,  always  acted  as  the  true  Church 
must  have  acted,  under  the  same  circumstances. 

And  in  my  reflections  upon  this  subject,  I  could  not  under- 
stand how  the  mere  fact  of  a  definition  being  made  by  the 
Church  at  any  tune,  of  any  article  of  faith,  could  be  the  slight- 
est proof,  that  such  article  was  not  always  believed  in  the 
church,  until  the  occasion  arose  for  its  definition.  On  the  con- 
trary, every  presumption  of  reason  and  law  would  hold  it  as 
evidence,  prima  facie  at  least,  that  such  a  doctrine  had  so  al- 
ways existed.  Like  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court,  all 
these  decrees  of  the  Church  assumed,  upon  their  face,  to  be 
only  declaratory  of  not  only  the  then  existing  belief  of  the 
Church,  but  of  that  wrhich,  at  all  times,  had  been  such.  To 
say,  therefore,  that  the  express  written  definition  of  an  article 
of  faith  by  the  Church,  was  an  evidence  that  such  faith  was  new 
in  the  Church,  because  for  the  first  time  defined,  was  to  my 
mind  as  erroneous,  as  to  say,  that  every  new  construction  or 
definition  of  an  article  of  our  Constitution  by  our  Supreme 
Court,  is  the  subversion  of  that  instrument,  in  the  contemplation 
of  our  Federal  theory  of  government.  But  to  say  that  such 
definition  was  at  least  prima  facie  evidence  that  the  doctrine  de- 
fined wras  not  new,  was  to  my  mind  equivalent  to  saying,  that 
the  true  Church  had  always  been  vigilant,  decisive,  and  prompt 
in  the  discharge  of  her  duties,  and  in  the  exercise  of  her  legiti- 
mate powers.  For  I  could  not  form  a  conception  of  a  visible 
Church,  without  the  necessity  for  the  exercise  of  such  a  power ; 
nor  could  I  esteem  a  Church  of  any  value  at  all,  that  had  no 
such  power,  or  that  had  not  the  moral  nerve  to  use  it  when  re- 


296  WHICH  IS  THE  TRUE  CHURCH  ? 

quired.     And  the  irresistible  conclusion  in  my  mind  was  this 
that  whether  the  Catholic  Church  be  the  true  Church  or  not, 
she  did,  in  fact,  act  consistently  as  if  she  were;  and  as  she 
claimed  to  be  such,  her  acts  had  been  in  perfect  unison  with  her 
professions  in  this  respect. 

And  when  I  came  to  look  into  the  history  of  these  defini- 
tions, I  found  most  ample  historical  proofs  to  show  their  reason 
and  necessity — that  the  statement  made  by  the  great  St.  Au- 
gustine, in  reference  to  certain  questions  defined  before  or  in 
his  day,  was  true  of  the  definitions  made  by  the  Church  after- 
wards. These  definitions  were  made  as  often  as  cases  arose  re- 
quiring them,  and  were  only  declaratory  of  the  existing  faith  of 
the  Church.  And  this  was  shown,  not  only  from  the  express 
declaration  of  the  decrees,  in  unison  with  the  rule  of  the  Church, 
expressly  recognized  at  all  periods  of  her  existence,  that  she 
only  taught  the  doctrine  which  came  down  to  her  without  in- 
terruption from  the  apostles,  but  it  was  affirmatively  shown  by 
the  express  testimonies  of  the  Fathers,  and  historians  of  the 
Church,  written  at  various  times,  in  countries  widely  separated 
from  each  other. 

The  statement  made  by  Mr.  Campbell,  that  "  in  the  9th  cen- 
tury, the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  began  to  be  talked  of 
commonly,  but  was  made  infallible  by  Pope  Innocent  III.,  4th 
Lateran  Council,"  I  found  was  not  sustained  by  the  facts  of  his- 
tory. It  was  true,  that  the  4th  Lateran  Council  in  1215,  first 
made  the  definition,  and  first  used  the  word  transubstantiation, 
as  best  and  most  concisely  expressing  the  faith  of  the  Church ; 
but  it  was  equally  true  that  this  definition  was  brought  about 
by  the  denial  of  the  doctrine  by  Berengarius,  and  that  it  had 
been  believed  in  all  ages  of  the  Church,  as  the  testimonies  of 
the  Fathers  abundantly  show.  So  long  as  the  words  "  This  is 
my  body,  This  is  my  blood  "  were  understood  in  their  plain  lit- 
eral sense,  it  was  wholly  unnecessary  to  define  the  faith  of 
the  Church.  When  Christ  says  "  This  is  my  body,"  it  is  ob- 
vious that  these  words,  if  taken  literally  in  their  plain  sense,  ex- 
press the  entire  change  of  substance.  And  when  these  words, 
in  the  opinion  of  the  Church,  are  misconstrued,  other  words 
must  then  be  used  to  express  the  idea  the  Church  decides  is 
conveyed  by  the  language  of  Christ.  There  are  some  words 


WHICH    IS   THE   TRUE   CHURCH  ?  297 

that  can  only  be  taken  in  one  sense,  and  that  sense  is  fixed  and 
determinate ;  while  other  expressions  may  admit  of  different 
senses.  If  the  Church  finds  her  doctrines  impugned  by  those 
who  misconstrue  the  Scriptures,  she  is  compelled,  of  necessity, 
to  use  other  than  the  Scripture  language,  (already  miscon- 
strued^ otherwise  her  decrees  would  settle  nothing.  Those 
who  had  misconstrued  the  same  language  in  the  Scriptures, 
would  again  misconstrue  the  same  language  in  the  decrees,  and 
insist  that  the  Church  had  defined  nothing,  or  that  she  had,  in 
fact,  confirmed  their  views.  No  single  term,  perhaps,  could  be 
found,  so  definite  and  certain  as  the  word  transubstantiation. 
The  words  "  This  is  my  body  "  express  the  same  idea,  if  taken 
literally.  For  when  one  says  "  this  is  a  certain  thing,"  naming 
it,  he  does  not  mean  to  say,  it  also  contains  another  and  a  dif- 
ferent thing.  By  this  form  of  expression  he  speaks  of  a  single 
thing^  and  not  of  two  or  more  things  existing  together.  This 
single  thing  may  be  composed  of  separate  parts,  but  cannot 
consist  of  two  separate  and  distinct  things,  like  bread  and 
Christ's  body.* 

*  The  fact  that  a  new  name  is  given  to  a  thing,  under  new  circumstances,  is 
not  at  all  surprising,  hut  is  very  common.  It  is  very  natural  for  men  to  seek  a 
single  word,  to  express  several  ideas,  when  a  frequent  repetition  is  required,  either 
in  spoken  or  written  language.  This  tendency  of  common  sense  towards  com- 
mon convenience  was  very  fully  shown  in  California,  in  1848,  the  year  the  gold 
mines  were  discovered.  At  first,  when  a  man  went  out  to  search  for  new  gold 
mines,  they  said  he  had  gone  "  to  hunt  for  new  gold  diggings ;  "  but  as  the  same 
answer,  from  the  new  circumstances  existing,  had  to  be  made  so  often,  some  one 
called  the  whole  operation  "prospecting^'  and  the  term  at  once  passed  into  gen- 
eral use,  and  so  continues.  So,  in  theological  controversy,  it  is  matter  of  conven- 
ience, to  use  one  term  as  expressive  of  several  ideas.  It  is  also  proper,  in  such 
cases,  to  use  a  term  that  is  alone  applicable  to  the  particular  case,  as  it  is  more 
certain.  But  the  use  of  these  new  terms  is  not  the  slightest  evidence  that  the 
thing  itself  has  changed,  any  more  than  the  fact,  that  the  disciples  were  first 
culled  Christians  at  Antioch,  was  evidence  that  they  were  different  from  what 
they  had  been.  For  these  reasons,  I  considered  the  argument  of  Mr.  Campbell 
and  other  Protestants,  founded  upon  the  name  Roman  Catholic,  as  entirely  erro- 
neous. And  for  the  same  reason,  I  considered  the  arguments  of  some  Catholic 
writers,  based  upon  the  term  Protestant,  as  signifying  only  something  negative, 
and  nothing  affirmative,  as  equally  erroneous.  We  must  look  to  the  circum- 
stance under  which  the  name  is  given  to  know  what  it  means,  in  such  cases. 

The  word  Trinity  nowhere  occurs  in  the  New  Testament,  and  shall  we  hence 

27 


298  WHICH    IS    THE   TRUE    CHUKCH  i 

And  in  reference  to  other  alleged  innovations  in  the  faith  ol 
the  Church,  I  found  the  same  thing  to  be  true  ;  to  wit :  that  the 
Church  was  compelled  to  define  them,  because  assailed  y  and 
that  they  had  always  existed  in  the  Church  from  the  beginning. 

§  5.  The  same  subject  further  considered. 

In  reference  to  those  charges  against  the  uniformity  of  the 
Church,  coming  under  the  third  division,  being  alleged  contra- 
dictions in  doctrine,  Mr.  Campbell  gives  several  instances.  In 
the  first  place,  he  gives  several  alleged  contradictions  in  the  de- 
crees of  the  Popes ;  but  as  the  church  does  not  hold  the  infalli- 
bility of  the  Pope  as  an  article  of  faith,  therefore,  whether  those 
alleged  contradictions  be  true  or  untrue,  does  not  touch  the 
question.  In  the  second  place,  he  alleges  certain  contradictions 
in  the  decrees  of  different  general  councils,  in  reference  to  the 
same  matter. 

The  first  allegation  is  that  "  the  Council  of  Constance  says 
the  church  in  old  times  allowed  the  laity  to  partake  of  both 
kinds — the  bread  and  the  wine — in  celebrating  the  eucharist. 
The  Council  of  Trent  says  the  laity  and  unofficiating  priests 
may  commune  in  one  kind  only.  Here  then  we  have  Council 
against  Council.  In  the  time  of  Pope  Gelasius  it  was  pronounced 
to  be  sacrilege  to  deny  the  cup  to  the  laity ;  but  now  it  is  un- 
canonical  to  allow  it."  (Debate  C.  &  P.,  179.) 

conclude  that  the  doctrine  expressed  by  the  term  is  not  found  therein  ?  All 
such  arguments  are  based  upon  a  remarkably  shallow  foundation,  though  they 
arc  very  often  used  It  must  be  conceded  that  names  are  not  given  to  things, 
before  the  things  have  either  a  real  or  imaginary  existence.  When  a  new  doc- 
trine is  put  forth,  there  can  seldom  be  found  a  short  known  term  to  express  it. 
The  lawmaker,  to  make  himself  understood,  must,  of  necessity,  do  one  of  two 
things: 

1.  He  must  coin  a  new  term,  or  take  an  old  one,  and  in  either  case,  He  mast 
first  define  the  sense  in  which  He  uses  the  term. 

2.  Or,  He  must  do  the  same  thing  in  substance,  by  stating  in  tull  the  par- 
ticulars that  make  up  the  doctrine,  leaving  others  to  give  it  a  short  name. 

To  convey  to  the  mind  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  before  that  term  was  de- 
fined, a  number  of  words  was  indispensable.  After  the  doctrine  is  understood, 
convenience  will  force  parties,  even  the  cavillers  themselves,  to  adopt  a  short 
term,  expressive  of  all  the  ideas  entering  into  and  composing  the  thing  under- 
ttood 


WHICH    IS    THE   TRUE    CHURCH?  299 

In  regard  to  allowing  both  kinds  to  the  laity,  or  only  one, 
the  first  question  that  arises,  is  it  held  by  the  Church  a  matter 
of  faith,  or  a  matter  of  discipline  ?  As  stated  by  Mr.  Campbell 
above,  it  will  be  seen  there  is  no  contradiction  between  the  two 
Councils  of  Constance  and  Trent,  as  the  first  says  the  laity  were 
anciently  allowed  both  kinds,  and  the  latter  says,  they  may 
commune  in  only  one.  But  the  idea  intended  to  be  conveyed 
by  Mr.  C.,  as  I  understand  it,  was  that  anciently  it  was  the 
practice  for  the  laity  to  receive  in  both  kinds,  and  now  it  is  the 
practice  to  receive  only  in  one. 

The  Church  regards  receiving  in  one  or  both  kinds  by  the 
laity,  as  only  matter  of  discipline — that  it  is  not  essential  to  the 
administration  of  the  sacrament — that  the  command  "  drink  ye 
all  of  it  "  was  given  to  the  apostles  as  consecrating  priests — that 
Christ  is  equally  present,  whole  and  entire,  in  both  species,  and 
therefore  equally  received  under  both  kinds. 

The  whole  question  resolves  itself,  as  I  understand  it,  into 
the  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence.  If  that  doctrine  be  true, 
then  it  is  clear  that  Christ  is  equally  present  and  received  un- 
der both  species  alike ;  since  His  blood  can  no  more  be  shed, 
and  separated  from  His  body.  In  the  early  ages  of  the  Church, 
it  was  most  generally  administered  under  both  kinds ;  but  even 
then  it  was  frequently  administered  under  only  one  kind.  Ter- 
tullian,  St.  Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  St.  Cyprian,  St.  Basil,  St. 
Chrysostom,  and  others,  prove  this  to  have  been  true.  It  has 
always,  therefore,  been  regarded  as  only  a  matter  of  changeable 
discipline.  Many  Protestants,  as  Bishops  Forbes,  White,  and 
Montague,  of  the  English  church,  not  only  admit  the  fact  as  to 
the  ancient  practice  of  the  church,  but  acknowledge  that  the 
authority  for  giving  under  both  kinds,  is  rather  from  tradition 
than  from  Scripture.  So  also  Cassander  and  Grotius.  In  the 
Calvinistic  Synod  of  Poictiers,  in  France,  held  in  1550,  it  was 
declared  that  "  the  bread  of  the  Lord's  Supper  ought  to  be  ad- 
ministered to  those  who  cannot  drink  wine."  The  Acts  of  Par- 
liament,  which  established  communion  under  both  kinds,  made 
it  lawful  to  administer  in  one  kind  only,  when  required.  (Con. 
H.  &  B.,  851.) 

Communion  under  both  kinds  was  not  introduced  by  Luther, 
but  by  Carlostadius,  while  Luther  was  concealed.  This  was  in 


300  WHICH    IS    THE    TRUE    CHURCH  ? 

1521.  Luther,  in  a  letter  he  wrote  on  the  reformation  of  Car- 
lostadius,  reproaches  him  "  with  having  placed  Christianity  in 
things  of  no  account — communicating  under  both  kinds,  taking 
the  sacrament  into  the  hand,  abolishing  confession,  and  burning 
images."  (Bossuet's  Va.,  B.  ii.,  sec.  8—10.) 

That  the  whole  question,  whether  receiving  under  both 
kinds  by  the  laity,  be  matter  of  faith  or  discipline,  depends 
upon  the  truth  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence,  seems  to 
be  clear.  Thus  Mr.  Breckenridge  says :  "  We  come  next  to 
consider  your  defence  of  the  Roman  church  for  taking  the  cup 
from  the  people  in  the  Eucharist.  Your  first  reason  is  that 
Christ  is  present,  whole  and  entire,  under  each  of  the  species  of 
the  sacrament.  But  the  force  of  this  depends,  as  you  are  aware, 
on  the  truth  of  Transubstantiation."  (Con.  H.  &  B.,  402.) 

In  reference  to  which  Bossuet  remarks :  "  And,  indeed,  if 
there  was  reason  to  maintain  baptism  without  immersion,  be- 
cause,  in  rejecting  it,  it  would  follow  there  had  been  no  such 
thing  as  Baptism  for  many  ages,  consequently  no  such  thing  as 
a  church,  it  being  impossible  for  the  church  to  subsist  without 
the  substance  of  the  Sacraments :  no  less  impossible  was  it,  with, 
out  the  substance  of  the  Supper.  The  same  reason,  then,  sub- 
sisted for  maintaining  communion  under  one  kind,  as  for  main- 
taining baptism  by  infusion  ;  and  the  church,  in  maintaining 
these  two  practices  which  tradition  showed  equally  indifferent, 
did  nothing  else  but,  according  to  custom,  maintain  against  con- 
tentious spirits  that  authority,  whereon  the  faith  of  the  people 
reposed."  (Bossuet's  Va.,  B.  xv.,  sec.  140.) 

Receiving  under  one  or  both  kinds,  being  a  matter  of  change- 
able discipline  dependent  upon  circumstances,  in  the  days  of 
St.  Leo,  the  Manicheans  were  discovered  by  him,  by  their  re- 
fraining from  receiving  the  cup ;  and  as  they  mixed  with  the 
Catholics,  and  had  the  liberty,  as  all  had,  to  receive  under  one 
or  both  kinds  as  they  preferred,  it  was  exceedingly  difficult  to 
detect  them.  It  was  for  the  purpose  of  rendering  them  wholly 
distinguishable  to  the  people,  that  an  express  requisition  was 
made  for  all  to  receive  in  both  kinds.  By  this  means  the  Ma- 
nicheans stood  manifest.  And  to  show  that  this  discipline  was 
not  founded  upon  the  necessity  of  always  receiving  under  both 
kinds,  St.  Gelasius  grounds  it  in  formal  terms  on  this  basis, 


WHICH    IS   THE   TRUE    CHURCH  ?  301 

that  those  who  refused  the  wine  did  it  through  a  certain  super- 
stition. (Va.,  Book  xi.,  sec.  12.) 

The  statement  of  Mr.  Campbell  that  "  in  the  time  of  Pope 
Gelasius  it  was  pronounced  to  be  sacrilege  to  deny  the  cup  to 
the  laity,"  was  founded  upon  the  state  of  case  above  stated, 
and  is  not  a  fair  and  just  statement  of  the  matter  of  fact.  For 
the  Manichean  to  deny  that  the  wine  was  the  blood  of  Christ, 
was  to  contradict  the  words  of  Christ,  "  This  is  my  blood,"  as 
always  understood  by  the  Church,  and  was  a  denial  of  the  whole 
doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence.  If  they  could  deny  that  the 
wine  was  the  blood,  they  could  deny  that  the  bread  was  the 
body  of  Christ.  It  was,  therefore,  heresy  in  them  to  refuse  the 
wine  for  heretical  reasons. 

As  to  the  alleged  contradictions  in  the  Councils  of  the 
Church,  hi  reference  to  communion  under  one  or  both  kinds,  I 
could  see  none,  unless  Mr.  C.  had  shown  that  one  Council  held 
it  a  matter  of  faith  to  receive  in  both  kinds.  But  I  could  find 
no  such  proof.  The  Church  had  always  held  it  as  matter  of 
discipline.  It  depends  upon  the  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence. 
If  that  doctrine  be  untrue,  there  would  be  an  error  of  doctrine, 
but  not  a  contradiction,  in  the  Church. 

Exclude  the  authority  of  the  Church,  and  of  Tradition,  and 
it  would  seem  difficult  to  sustain  keeping  the  first  for  the  sev- 
enth day  of  the  week,  or  for  not  enforcing  the  washing  of  feet. 
But  it  is  still  more  difficult  to  find  any  Scriptural  authority  for 
setting  aside  the  decree  of  the  Council  of  Jerusalem,  which 
commanded  the  Gentile  brethren  to  "  abstain  from  meats  offered 
to  idols,  and  from  blood,  and  from  things  strangled,"  &c.,  say- 
ing "  it  seemed  good  to  the  Holy  Ghost  and  to  us,  to  lay  upon 
you  no  greater  burthen  than  these  necessary  things." 

I  confess  it  requires  more  discernment  than  I  possess  to  find 
any  authority  in  the  Scriptures  for  holding  these  explicit  com- 
mands  temporary.  They  are  not  given  in  that  form — they  are, 
in  their  nature,  such  as  might  well  be  permanent — they  were 
put  forth  without  limitation  as  to  time,  and  they  are  too  ex- 
plicit to  be  misconstrued.  How  any  Protestant  can  avoid  them 
under  his  theory,  I  am  wholly  unable  to  determine. 

In  regard  to  the  alleged  change  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Church, 
in  reference  to  Transubstantiation,  Mr.  Campbell  says : 


302  WHICH    IH    THE    TRUE    CHURCH  ? 

"The  fourth  Council  ot  Lateran,  A.  D.  1215,  says,  with  the 
concurrence  of  Pope  Innocent  III.,  that  the  bread  and  wine  in 
the  act  of  consecration  suffer  a  physical  change.  Then  we  be- 
gin to  read  of  Transubstanliation.  Coun.  Lat.  iv.,  Can.  1.  *  Did 
the  Church  always  maintain  this  doctrine  ?  '  Nay,  verily,  for  a 
host  of  fathers,  nay  the  whole  Church,  for  the  first  four  centu- 
ries, say  '  the  change  is  only  moral' — a  sanctification,  a  separa- 
tion to  a  special  use.  Here  we  might  read  a  host  of  Fathers, 
if  we  thought  their  testimony  necessary."  (Deb.  C.  &  P.,  179.)* 

When  I  first  read  this  statement,  I  was  under  the  impres- 
sion that  Mr.  C.  had  mado  out  a  plain  case  of  contradiction,  as 
I  did  not  believe  that  he  would  make  assertions  so  confidently, 
without  being  able  to  sustain  them.  In  his  reply,  Bishop  Pur- 
cell  said  :  "  No  father  of  the  Church,  however,  said,  that  the 
consecration  of  the  eucharist,  is  a  mere  '  separation,'  or  the 
change  only  a  '  moral  change.'  I  defy  him  to  the  proof." 
(Debate  C.  &  P.,  186.) 

The  issue  was  fairly  joined.  There  was  a  direct  affirmation 
on  one  side,  and  a  direct  denial  on  the  other.  But  I  never 
could  find  the  proofs  to  which  Mr.  Campbell  referred,  either  in 
the  debate  in  question,  or  in  any  other  work.  It  did  seem  to 
me  that  Mr.  C.  had  made  the  strength  of  his  assertion  support 
the  absence  of  his  proof. 

The  last  alleged  contradiction  in  the  faith  of  the  Church, 
made  by  Mr,  C.,  was  in  regard  to  the  marriage  of  the  clergy. 

"  Again,"  he  says,  "  the  second  Council  of  Lateran,  the 
tenth  oecumenical  council,  forbade  the  marriage  of  the  clergy. 
For  800  years  the  clergy  were  allowed  to  marry.  For  the  first 
600  years  one-half  the  canons  of  councils  were  regulating  the 
clergy  as  to  the  affairs  of  matrimony  and  celibacy.  The  ancient 
church  had  not  yet  learned  to  forbid  marriage  to  the  clergy  \ 
for  with  St.  Paul,  the  clergy  yet  believed,  that  '  marriage  was 
honorable  in  all.' "  (Debate  C.  &  P.,  179.) 

In  reference  to  the  celibacy  of  the  clergy,  I  found  that  the 

*  Mr.  C.  seemed  to  me  to  make  assertions  without  due  reflection.  In  this 
extract  he  says:  "Then  (1215)  we  hegin  to  read  of  transubstantiation."  In  an- 
other place  he  says :  "  In  the  9th  century,  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  be- 
gan to  be  talked  of  commonly,"  &c.  (Debate  C.  &  P.,  277.)  But  I  found  thil 
amended  statement  equally  untrue. 


WHICH   IS   THE   TRUE   CHURCH?  303 

Church  never  held  it  as  a  matter  of  faith — that  she  had  always 
regarded  it  as  matter  of  discipline,  resting  in  her  discretion, 
and  dependent  upon  circumstances — and  that  she  held  celibacy 
to  be  a  more  honorable  state,  which  any  one  might,  or  might 
not  voluntarily  enter  into,  at  his  own  will  and  pleasure.  As  1 
understand  the  views  of  the  Church,  upon  this  subject,  she  holds 
these  distinct  positions : 

1.  That  marriage  was  a  matter  under  the  control  of  each 
individual. 

2.  That  it  was  no  sin  to  marry,  and  no  sin  to  refrain  from 
marriage. 

3.  That  it  was  more  honorable  to  refrain  from  marriage, 
when  the  motive  was  the  greater  service  of  God. 

4.  That  individuals,  male  and  female,  had  the  clear  right  by 
a  vow,  voluntarily  made,  to  dedicate  themselves  to  the  entire 
service  of  God. 

5.  That  having  made  this  deliberate  engagement,  they  could 
not  afterwards  violate  it  without  committing  a  grievous  offence, 
by  lying  unto  God,  and  His  Church. 

6.  That  the  Church  has  the  undoubted  right  to  select  her 
own  ministers,  and  to  judge  of  their  qualifications. 

7.  That  a  body  of  clergy,  who  embrace  celibacy,  are  more 
able  to  give  their  entire  time  and  thoughts  to  their  duties,  and 
for  that  reason,  are  more  devoted,  more  efficient,  in  proportion 
to  numbers,  and  having  no  families  to  support,  are  more  eco- 
nomical, and  a  less  burthen  to  the  church.* 

8.  That  for  these  reasons,  the   church  prefers  those   who 
pledge  themselves  to  celibacy;  and  so   long   as   she   can  find 
a  number  of   such   sufficient   for   her    ministry,  she   has    the 
right  to  accept  their  services,  in  preference  to  those  who  are 
married. 

9.  That  when  she  does  so  select  an  individual,  with  the 
pledge  and  distinct  understanding,  that  he  shall  remain  unmar- 
ried, that  he  is  bound,  by  all  the  rules  of  Christianity,  to  per- 

*  According  to  the  statistics  collected  and  published  in  a  number  of  the  Ci- 
rilta  Cattolica,  the  expense  of  the  ministry  of  the  Established  Church  in  England 
amounts  to  a  tax  of  about  eight  shillings  to  each  person,  per  annum,  while  in 
France,  the  maintenance  of  the  Catholic  clergy  amounts  to  one  shilling  to  each 
inhabitant  per  annum. 


304  WHICH   IS   THE   TRUE   CHURCH  ? 

form  his  promise  faithfully ;  and  when  he  does  not  do  so,  she  of 
right  excludes  him  from  her  communion.* 

Now,  whatever  opinion  may  be  entertained  in  reference  to 
this  discipline  of  the  Church,  it  is  clear  that  there  is  no  contra- 
diction in  her  faith,  and  no  violation  of  her  infallibility.  I  could 
not  find  any  proof  that  she  had  ever  held,  at  any  period  of  her 
existence,  either  the  marriage  or  celibacy  of  the  clergy,  as  a 
matter  of  faith.  Nor  could  I  find  any  thing  in  the  teaching  of 
Christ,  or  of  His  apostles,  that  made  celibacy  a  sin,  or  that  made 
marriage  obligatory  upon  individuals. 

These  several  charges  of  a  want  of  uniformity  in  the  doc- 

*  In  selecting  His  apostles,  did  Christ  interfere  with  their  free  agency  ?  Did 
He  force  them  to  become  His  apostles,  against  their  consent  ?  Surely  not.  But 
after  they  had  voluntarily  and  deliberately  undertaken  the  task  assigned  them, 
and  after  having  received  our  Lord's  instructions  personally,  for  more  than  three 
years,  could  they,  or  any  one  or  more  of  them,  have  withdrawn,  without  good 
cause,  from  the  duties  attached  to  the  position,  and  not  have  committed  a  griev- 
ous sin?  They  could  not,  it  would  seem,  violate  their  solemn  engagement. 
Was  it  not  voluntary  ?  Was  it  not  lawful  ?  and  was  it  not  binding  ?  Christ 
fulfilled  His  part  faithfully.  Were  they  not  obliged,  by  His  law,  to  do  the  same  ? 
St.  Paul  was  not  forced  to  be  a  preacher  of  the  gospel,  but  he  voluntarily  un- 
dertook to  be  one,  and  he  said :  "  Woe  is  unto  me,  if  I  preach  not  the  gospel." 
(1  Cor.  ix.  16.)  There  was  "  a  necessity  laid  upon  him." 

The  very  same  principle  applies  to  a  person  who  voluntarily  and  deliberately 
engages  to  perform  the  duties  of  a  priest.  The  Church  instructs  him  for  years 
to  qualify  him,  as  Christ  did  His  apostles,  for  the  work.  These  laborious  in- 
structions are  given  upon  the  distinct  engagement  to  enter  her  ministry  when 
qualified,  if  still  mutually  satisfactory  to  both  parties.  The  candidate  has  am- 
ple time  allowed  him  to  make  a  deliberate  choice,  and  may  retract,  at  any  time, 
before  his  ordination ;  of  all  which  he  is  fully  informed.  Then,  after  the  Church 
has  done  all  on  her  part,  in  good  faith,  shall  the  minister,  without  her  consent, 
violate  his  deliberate  and  lawful  engagement,  and  still  retain  the  position  ?  Is 
there  any  common  honesty  in  such  an  act  ?  The  Church  must  be  a  very  poor 
and  contemptible  institution,  altogether  inferior  to  any  civil  government,  if  she 
be  incompetent  to  make  a  binding  engagement,  or  when  made,  impotent  to  en- 
force it.  If  a  man  voluntarily,  of  his  own  free  will,  enlist  in  the  army,  he  is 
bound  to  serve  out  his  time.  Is  not  this  right  ?  If  the  true  Church  has  not  the 
right  to  select  her  own  ministers,  what  power  and  privilege  has  she  ?  Is  she 
not  a  very  weak  and  feeble  institution,  when  she  is  compelled  to  submit  to  the 
opinions  of  outsiders  who  wish  to  force  themselves  into  her  ministry  upon  their 
own  terms  ?  The  power  and  the  right  to  select  its  own  officers  must  belong  to 
the  true  Church. 


WHICH   IS   THE   TRUE    CHURCH?  305 

trines  and  teaching  of  the  Catholic  Church,  wholly  failed  to  sat- 
isfy  my  mind  that  they  were  based  upon  any  satisfactory  foun- 
dation. But  the  great  and  striking  fact,  that  the  Church  had 
existed  for  so  many  centuries — had  passed  through  so  many 
vicissitudes — and  yet,  after  all,  had  been  so  uniform  in  teaching 
all  that  she  herself  ever  held  as  essential  faith,  was  calculated  to 
make  the  most  serious  impression  upon  the  mind  of  the  patient 
and  fair  inquirer.  For  to  my  mind  it  did  show,  that  she  was 
the  most  successful  counterfeit  of  the  genuine  coin,  that  ever 
did  exist,  if  she  were  not  the  true  coin  itself.  It  is  so  difficult 
always  to  wear  a  mask — so  difficult  to  wear  it  consistently — and 
for  so  many  ages.  How  could  this  be  ?  Her  history  was  won- 
derful— her  success  most  unaccountable.  In  the  absence  of  in- 
fallibility, who  can  account  for  it  ?  What  reasonable  hypothesis 
can  be  given  ? 

I  found  that  at  present  her  faith  was  taught  in  every  land, 
among  every  people — that  she  had  the  same  creed  for  the  rude 
Indian,  the  imaginative  Asiatic,  the  dark  African,  the  enlight- 
ened European,  and  the  practical  American — that  between  the 
frigid  zones  of  the  North  and  South,  and  around  the  whole 
world,  she  had  only  the  same  sacraments — the  same  priesthood 
— and  the  same  liturgical  services — and  the  same  creed  of  faith. 
In  short,  I  found  her  ministers  in  every  nook  and  corner  of  the 
accessible  earth,  and  her  missionaries  in  every  sea.  Here  in 
California,  where  the  varied  races  of  the  earth  do  congregate, 
where  more  languages  are  spoken,  than  were  found  in  Jerusa- 
lem on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  we  find  men  of  all  classes,  kindreds, 
nations,  and  tongues,  meet  around  the  same  altar,  partake  of 
the  same  sacraments,  and  though  unknown  to  each  other,  save 
by  the  golden  chain  of  faith,  are  each  and  all  perfectly  at  home, 
in  the  same  house  of  the  Lord.  Is  not  this  as  it  should  be  ?  Is 
not  this  union?  Apostolic  union  ?  If  not,  where,  O  where  can 
it  be  found  ? 
20 


CHAPTER  V11I. 

MISCELLANEOUS    OBJECTIONS    ANSWERED. 

§  1.  If  private  interpretation  be  sufficient  for  one  purpose,  is  it 
not  for  all? 

THE  first  objection  I  shall  examine,  is  one  which  is  consid- 
ered by  Protestants  as  of  great  importance.  In  the  language 
of  Mr.  Breckenridge : 

"  If  private  interpretation  is  sufficient  to  explain  the  whole 
word  of  God,  in  order  to  find  out  the  true  church,  why  is  it  not 
sufficient  for  the  rest  ?  "  (Con.  H.  &  B.,  151.)  The  same  objec- 
tion is  made  by  Mr.  Campbell,  (Debate  C.  &  P.,  181,)  and  by  all 
Protestant  controversialists  whose  works  I  have  read.  The  ob- 
jection, upon  its  face,  appears  to  possess  great  plausibility,  and 
much  force.  It  has  already  been  substantially  answered  in  pre- 
ceding pages  ;  but  as  it  is  esteemed  of  so  much  importance  by 
those  who  urge  it,  some  additional  considerations  will  be  sub- 
mitted. 

It  will  be  readily  seen,  upon  reflection,  that  the  essence  of 
the  objection  is  founded  upon  these  positions : 

1.  That  the  Scriptures  contain  the  only  evidence  of  the  true 
Church. 

2.  That  all  portions  of  them  are  equally  easy  of  interpreta- 
tion; or,  that  those  portions  relating  to  the  Church,  are  as 
difficult  as  any  other. 

3.  That  an  individual  bears  the  same  relation  to  the  Church, 
so  far  as  the  right  of  private  interpretation  in  the  last  resort  is 
concerned,  before  he  joins  the  Church,  as  he  does  afterwards. 


MISCELLANEOUS    OBJECTIONS.  307 

Each  and  all  "of  these  positions  must  be  true,  or  else  the  ob- 
jection is  not  good.  For  if  there  be  other  testimony  to  point 
out  the  true  Church,  then  the  original  inquirer  does  not  rely 
solely  upon  his  private  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures,  but,  in 
part,  upon  other  evidence.  So,  if  it  be  true,  that  there  are  some 
things  in  Scripture  hard  to  understand,  and  many  things  easily 
understood,  and  these  hard  things  relate  not  to  the  Church, 
then  it  is  clear,  that  the  inquirer  may  well  be  able  to  construe 
the  plain  portions  of  the  written  Word,  and  be  competent  to 
find  the  true  Church — his  guide — in  the  same  way  that  a  man 
of  good  sense  can  be  competent  to  choose  a  lawyer,  although  he 
is  not  himself  acquainted  with  all  the  law.  And  so,  when  a  man 
once  becomes  a  subject  of  this  visible  kingdom — the  Church — 
his  relation  towards  it  may  be  very  different;  and  while  his 
privileges  may  be  increased,  his  responsibilities  may  be  also  in- 
creased in  a  corresponding  degree. 

To  illustrate  my  meaning,  I  will  suppose  an  inhabitant  of 
another  country  to  become  convinced  that  he  is  not  living  un- 
der a  good  government,  and  that  he  at  once  looks  around  the 
world  for  a  government  that  secures  the  greatest  amount  of  in- 
dividual freedom,  consistent  with  order  and  protection.  In  this 
search  he  fixes  his  attention  upon  our  country.  How  is  he  to 
know  the  leading  features  of  our  government?  He  may  take 
the  practical  operation  of  the  government,  as  now  existing, 
claiming  to  possess  certain  powers,  nnd  to  act  under  a  constitu- 
tion ;  or  he  may  examine  the  instrument  itself,  with  or  without 
the  aid  of  the  commentaries  of  our  great  constitutional  writers 
and  jurists  and  the  decisions  of  our  highest  courts ;  or  he  may 
take  all  these  together.  But  whether  he  use  one  or  more  of 
these  means,  is  a  matter  entirely  for  his  individual  consideration. 
The  government  will  not  interfere  with  him.  If  he  errs,  he  re- 
mains an  alien,  and  must  bear  the  incidents  belonging  to  that 
state.  The  government  has  no  jurisdiction  over  him.  His  mis- 
construction of  the  laws,  leads  to  no  breach  of  the  peace,  to  no 
crime,  and  to  no  treason. 

But  suppose  he  becomes  a  citizen.  His  relation  is  entirely 
changed.  He  enjoys  the  privileges,  but  also  takes  upon  himself 
the  obligations  incident  to  this  new  state.  He  can  now  hold 
oflfice  and  vote  at  elections ;  but  he  must  also  tight  the  battles 


308  MISCELLANEOUS    OBJECTIONS. 

of  the  country,  and  submit  implicitly  to  the  decisions  of  her 
courts.  He  no  longer  construes  any  part  of  the  law  for  himself 
in  the  last  resort.  He  now  owes  a  paramount  duty  to  his  vol- 
untarily adopted  country.  Next  to  his  duty  to  God,  his  highest 
duty  is  to  her.  He  must  sacrifice  his  life,  not  his  soul,  for  hia 
adopted  country,  if  necessary. 

And  are  not  these  plain  principles  applicable  to  the  Church, 
and  to  all  associations  of  men  ?  All  outside  the  Church  are  but 
aliens  from  that  kingdom,  and  must  suifer  whatever  incidents 
belong  to  that  state.  This  kingdom  is  open  to  the  oppressed  of 
every  land.  How  shall  the  honest  inquirer  find  out  the  true 
Church  ?  He  must  make  a  choice ;  and  there  are  various  means, 
by  the  use  of  which,  he  may  know  which  is  this  Church. 

1 .  He  may  take  the  testimony  of  history.  This  history  he 
will  find  in  the  Bible  in  part,  and  in  part  in  the  writings  of  other 
historians.  He  will  find  the  Bible,  especially  the  New  Testa- 
ment, to  difier  from  most  other  works,  and  to  be  composed  of 
two  parts,  historical  and  doctrinal /  and  he  will  find  the  former 
much  more  easily  understood  than  the  latter.  Persons  of  the 
most  ordinary  capacity,  even  children,  can  relate  facts  most  cor- 
rectly, and  also  understand  such  relations.  The  most  intelligent 
and  the  most  clear  witness  I  ever  heard  testify  in  court,  was  a 
poor  girl,  of  the  age  of  fourteen,  who  could  neither  read  nor 
write.  Her  statements  were  just  as  clear,  logical,  and  consistent 
as  the  simple  facts  themselves,  and  no  cross-examination  could 
entangle  her  in  the  least.  And  it  was  the  remark  of  Mr.  Van 
Buren,  while  Attorney-General  of  New  York,  that  the  most 
competent  witness  he  ever  heard  examined  in  court,  was  a 
colored  man  of  very  ordinary  mind,  who  was  a  witness  in  some 
great  criminal  case  in  that  State,  in  which  Mr.  Van  Buren  ap- 
peared on  the  part  of  the  prosecution. 

If  he  take  the  simple  historical  narrative  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, he  will  find  these  matters  of  positive  fact  clearly  established 
— that  about  eighteen  hundred  years  ago,  Christ  organized  a 
visible  association  of  men  called  "  The  Church  " — that  all  who 
were  regarded  as  His  subjects,  became  members  of  this  Church 
— that  this  institution  was  but  one  in  both  faith  and  govern- 
ment, though  spread  over  most  of  the  habitable  globe  in  the 
days  of  the  apostles — that  "  the  Lord  added  daily  to  this  Church 


MISCELLANEOUS   OBJECTIONS.  309 

such  as  should  be  saved  " — that  there  was  government  exercised 
over  this  Church,  and  a  law  practically  administered  by  officers 
in  the  Church — that  all  discords,  schisms,  and  divisions,  in  this 
association  were  most  zealously  opposed  by  the  apostles  them- 
selves— that  this  Church  was  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth 
— that  she  received  members,  rejected  heretics,  and  ordained 
ministers — that,  in  a  word,  she  exercised  all  the  powers  of  gov- 
ernment necessary  to  keep  in  union  and  existence  such  a  king- 
dom— and  that  there  is  not  the  slightest  intimation  given  any- 
where in  the  narrative,  that  this  Church  was  temporary,  or  that 
there  could  be  any  but  the  one.  And  he  will  find,  that  while 
there  were  heretics  in  those  days  they  were  rejected,  and  that 
the  great  and  overwhelming  majority  of  all  those  who  ever 
claimed  to  be  Christians,  were  members  of  this  Church. 

If  he  will  follow  down  the  stream  of  history,  from  the  days 
of  the  apostles,  he  will  find  it  historically  true,  that  this  same 
Church  continued,  having  the  same  faith,  the  same  government, 
always  claiming  the  same,  always  saying  we  teach  only  that 
which  came  down  to  us, — we  teach  nothing  new.  He  will  find 
the  world  full  of  her  history.  The  medal,  the  coin,  the  sepul- 
chral monument,  "  the  stone  in  the  wall,"  the  written  history — 
the  tradition — all  cry  out  and  attest  a  Church  so  united  in 
faith  and  government — so  spread  over  the  world — so  comprising 
in  her  communion  the  overwhelming  majority  of  all,  in  every 
age,  who  named  the  name  of  Jesus — that  as  in  the  days  of  the 
apostles,  so  at  all  subsequent  periods  of  her  history,  she  has  ex- 
pelled heretics,  and  when  expelled,  regarded  them  as  heathens 
and  publicans,  and  at  all  periods  has  continually  and  consistently 
claimed  to  be  the  sole  true  Church,  one  and  indivisible. 

2.  If  he  go  beyond  the  simple  history,  and  take  the  simplest 
commands,  he  will  hear  our  Lord  say  "  hear  the  Church,"  and 
"  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  her,"  and  St.  Paul 
telling  his  brethren,  in  the  most  explicit  terms,  that  they  were 
under  government  to  the  rulers  of  the  Church.  If  he  will  then 
take  the  admissions  of  the  different  rival  Churches,  he  will  find 
them  generally  agreeing  that  the  true  Church  must  be,  as  she 
was  in  the  days  of  the  apostles,  visible,  perpetual,  always  teach- 
ing, Catholic  and  united.  True,  he  will  find  a  few,  who  insist 
that  there  was  an  invisible  Church ;  but  he  will  see  that  such  a 


MISCELLANEOUS   OBJECTIONS. 

Church  had  no  powers  of  government,  and  was,  in  fact,  a  modern 
invention,  to  escape  a  difficulty.  Then,  taking  these  admissions 
and  the  historical  proofs  together,  and  he  will  at  once  see,  that 
the  Catholic  Church  is  the  only  one  now  existing,  that  can  pos- 
sibly till  the  promises  of  Christ — that  all  the  Protestant  sects 
taken  together,  or  any  smaller  number  of  them,  or  each  one 
separately,  cannot  tind  any  ancestors  of  their  own  faith  or  govern- 
ment, extending  back  to  the  apostles — that  if  they,  or  any  one 
or  more  of  them,  did  ever  exist  before  the  16th  centuvy,  then 
history  has  wholly  wronged  them,  and  neglected  to  record  the 
fact — that  if  he  takes  their  assumed  chain  of  succession,  he  will 
find  it  so  minute,  so  obscure,  so  discordant,  so  mixed  and  de- 
formed, that  he  is  forced  to  come  to  the  conclusion,  that  either 
Christianity  has  been  a  failure,  or  the  true  Church  is  found  else- 
where. 

3.  He  may  take  the  doctrines  and  acts  of  the  Catholic  Church, 
and  compare  them  together,  and  with  Scripture,  reason,  history, 
and  experience,  and  he  will  see  their  consistency,  one  with  the 
other — how  they  are  intimately  connected  as  the  parts  of  one 
whole  must  always  be  in  every  true  system — how  taking  away 
one  article  of  faith,  like  taking  out  one  stone  from  a  beautiful 
building,  destroys  the  harmony,  and  endangers  the  safety,  of 
the  whole — he  may  examine  her  acts,  and  see  if  they  are  not 
consistent  with  the  character  of  a  true  Church — her  invincible 
firmness — her  never-tiring  industry — her  vigilance — her  fruitful- 
ness,  and  her  wonderful  tenacity  of  life,  under  the  most  trying 
circumstances. 

4.  He  may  take  all  these  together. 

But  whether  he  use  one  or  more  of  these  means,  is  a  matter 
for  his  individual  consideration.  He  is  an  alien — has  not  yet 
come  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Church.  He  has  made  no 
engagement  with  her,  has  taken  upon  himself  no  obligations  as 
a  subject  of  this  kingdom.  If  he  errs  in  using  the  means  placed 
within  his  reach  by  the  Founder  of  the  Church,  he  will  still  re- 
main an  alien.  He  will  be  the  principal  sufferer.  His  miscon- 
structions of  the  law — his  disregard  of  history — his  rejection  of 
the  evidence  arising  from  her  unity  and  consistency,  cannot  in- 
jure the  Church,  to  any  great  extent.  He  is  openly  an  alien 
enemy.  His  true  character  is  known.  He  speaks  only  in  that 


MISCELLANEOUS    OBJECTIONS.  311 

character.  What  he  may  sny  cannot  so  well  produce  divisions 
in  the  kingdom.  His  acts  tend  more  to  unite,  than  sever  and 
divide  the  members  of  the  Church. 

But  if  he  becomes  a  member  of  the  true  Church,  whether  he 
uses  one,  or  all  of  the  many  means  at  his  command,  it  does  not 
matter.  St.  Clement  of  Alexandria  says :  "  The  way  of  truth  is 
one ;  but  other  streams  run  into  it  from  various  quarters,  as  into 
a  perennial  river."  (Strom.  1.  i.)  This  is  beautifully  expressed. 
So,  the  truth  of  Christianity  may  be  proved  by  a  thousand  con- 
verging rays  of  testimony ;  and  so,  the  true  Church  can  be 
found  in  many  ways,  all  leading  at  last  into  the  one  stream. 

Whenever  he  becomes  a  subject  of  this  Kingdom,  his  state, 
in  the  contemplation  of  the  Christian  theory,  is  entirely  changed. 
He  now  enjoys  the  privileges,  but  also  incurs  the  obligations, 
incident  to  this  new  state.  He  can  hope  for,  and  aspire  to,  that 
peaceful  heaven  promised  by  the  Founder  of  this  Kingdom ; 
but  he  must  also  fight  the  battles  of  the  King.  When  he  was 
an  alien,  he  was  exhorted  to  believe,  repent,  and  be  baptized  ; 
but  now  he  is  commanded  to  "  hear  the  Church,"  and  to  "  obey 
them  that  have  the  rule  over  him."  Whatever  may  be  his  abil- 
ities to  construe  the  law,  he  cannot  do  it  independent  of  the 
Church.  She  is  greater  than  he,  great  as  he  may  be.  It  is  not 
now  a  question  of  ability  alone,  but  a  question  of  peace — a  ques- 
tion of  union — a  question  of  success — a  question  of  right.  Now 
that  he  is  in  the  Church,  were  he  allowed  to  err  and  still  re- 
main a  member,  he  would  be  like  a  traitor  in  the  camp,  and 
would  be  tenfold  more  dangerous  than  if  he  had  never  joined 
the  Church.  And  if  he  has  this  right  of  private  interpretation 
in  the  last  resort,  he  cannot  be  expelled  from  the  Church  but  in 
mere  form  /  for,  in  the  contemplation  of  such  a  theory,  it  is  not 
an  expulsion  of  an  inferior,  but  a  mere  separation  of  equals. 

If,  then,  it  were  true,  that  it  was  just  as  easy  to  construe  the 
whole  law  of  Christ,  as  that  portion  which  relates  to  the  Church, 
and  that  an  individual  is  just  as  competent  to  do  so  in  the  one 
case  as  in  the  other,  and  that  there  is  no  other  evidence  to  point 
out  the  true  Church  but  the  Bible  alone  ;  still  this  right  of  pri- 
vate interpretation  in  the  last  resort,  could  not  exist  in  each 
member,  in  the  very  nature  of  the  institution  itself,  nor  under  the 
explicit  words  of  Christ  and  His  apostles.  For  when  a  man  be- 


312  MISCELLANEOUS    OBJECTIONS. 

comes  a  subject  of  Christ's  Kingdom,  his  obligations  regard  not 
himself  alone.  His  first  and  highest  duty  is  to  Christ  and  His 
Church.  As  the  SUCCESS  of  this  Kingdom  depends  essen- 
tially upon  the  UNITY  OF  ITS  SUBJECTS,  he  is  bound  to 
regard  that  object  with  the  greatest  solicitude  ;  for  it  was  dear- 
est to  his  Master's  heart,  who  died,  not  only  to  save  him,  but 
also  to  save  others,  and  who  wishes,  and  has  the  right,  to  use 
him  as  an  instrument  to  save  his  fellow-beings.  The  whole 
world  is  entitled  to  salvation  as  well  as  himself.  He  lives  not 
for  himself  alone ;  but  his  highest  and  holiest  interest,  if  he  only 
knew  it,  consists  in  his  faithfulness  to  this  Church. 

He  is  the  subject  of  a  King,  who  seeks  universal  empire 
over  men ;  and  success  lies  alone  through  unity  of  faith  and 
effort.  His  Lord  prayed  for  such  unity,  for  the  very  purpose 
"  that  the  world  might  believe."  When,  therefore,  he  is  guilty 
of  heresy,  he  not  only  commits  a  grievous  wrong  against  him- 
self, but  a  still  more  grievous  wrong  against  the  Church  of 
Christ,  and  against  Christ  Himself.  And,  as  was  said  before,  it 
is  not  a  question  alone  regarding  ability  of  individuals  to 
construe  the  code  in  the  last  resort.  If  every  citizen  of  the 
United  States  possessed  the  legal  ability,  the  justice,  and  im- 
partiality of  Chief  Justice  Marshall,  they  never  could  be  allowed 
that  privilege.  This  right  rests  in  the  government,  from  the 
necessity  and  reason  of  the  thing.  And  so  if  every  member  of 
the  Church  possessed  the  same  qualifications  as  the  ablest  theo- 
logian, this  right  must  still  exist  in  the  Church,  and  not  in  him. 
It  has  well  been  said :  "  With  the  talents  of  an  angel,  a  man  may 
yet  be  a  fool." 

§  2.  Is  the  Catholic  rule  impracticable  f 

The  next  objection  is  the  alleged  impracticability  of  the 
Catholic  rule.  This  objection  I  find  made  by  Mr.  Campbell, 
Mr.  Breckenridge,  and  by  all  Protestants  whose  works  I  have 
read. 

The  Council  of  Trent,  at  its  fourth  session,  decreed,  "  that 
no  one,  relying  on  his  own  skill,  shall — in  matters  of  faith  or 
morals,  pertaining  to  the  edification  of  Christian  doctrine- 
wresting  the  sacred  Scriptures  to  his  own  senses,  presume  to  in- 
terpret the  said  sacred  Scriptures  contrary  to  the  sense  which 


MISCELLANEOUS   OBJECTIONS.  313 

holy  mother  Church, — whose  it  is  to  judge  of  the  true  sense 
and  interpretation  of  the  Holy  Scriptures, — hath  held  and  doth 
hold ;  or  even  contrary  to  the  unanimous  consent  of  the 
Fathers." 

The  substance  of  this  decree  is  given  by  Mr.  Campbell,  with 
the  exception  that  he  uses  the  word  manners  instead  of  morals. 
(Debate  C.  &  P.,  279.)  Dr.  Spring,  after  quoting  it  says :  "  The 
scarcely  less  celebrated  creed  of  Pope  Pius  IV.  embraces  the 
same  thought,  and  with  almost  the  same  precision  of  language." 
(Dis.  5.) 

Mr.  Campbell  says :  "Our  rule  is  the  Bible  alone.  The  Ro- 
man Catholic  rule  contains  one  hundred  and  thirty-five  large 
folio  volumes  superadded  to  the  Bible,  and  the  Apocrypha." 
(Debate  C.  &  P.,  168.)  These,  he  states,  consists  of  Fathers, 
35  vols. ;  Decretals,  8  ;  Bulls  of  the  Popes,  10 ;  Decrees  of 
Councils,  31 ;  Acts  of  Saints,  51 — in  all,  135. 

Afterwards  he  says:  "  But  the  priesthood  are  sworn  cto  in- 
terpret the  Scriptures  according  to  the  unanimous  consent  of  the 
Fathers.'  *  *  *  *  But  how  can  they  unless  they  examine  all 
these  Fathers  ?  And  what  living  man  has  read  these  135  folios 
with  or  without  much  care  ?  *  *  *  *  Here  is  a  task  which  I 
say  never  was,  or  can  be  performed  by  man."  (Debate  C.  &  P., 
181.) 

Again  he  says :  "  The  Roman  Catholic  rule  is  exceedingly 
unwieldy.  It  requires  a  whole  Council  to  move  it,  and  apply  it 
to  a  single  opinion.  Ours  is  at  least  portable."  (Debate  C.  &  P., 
168.) 

The  first  matter  that  arrested  my  attention  was  a  miscon- 
struction of  the  decree.  It  will  be  seen  that  the  decree  is  nega- 
tive— that  no  one,  relying  upon  his  own  skill,  shall  presume  to 
construe  the  Scripture  contrary  to  the  Church,  or  to  the  unani- 
mous consent  of  the  Fathers.  If,  then,  a  member  of  the  Church 
construe  contrary  to  the  Church,  or  to  this  unanimous  consent, 
then  he  violates  the  decree,  and  only  then.  But  Protestant 
controvertists  have  taken  the  ground,  that  under  it,  no  article 
of  faith  can  be  defined,  unless  there  be  a  unanimous  consent  of 
the  Fathers  in  support  of  it.  If,  therefore,  they  say,  one  single 
Father  is  found  dissenting  from  all  the  others,  the  Church  cannot 
define  that  an  article  of  faith,  without  a  violation  of  this  decree. 
28 


314  MISCELLANEOUS    OBJECTIONS. 

But  I  must  confess  in  all  candor,  I  could  not  see  "  whero 
unto  this  would  grow."  If  ninety-nine  Fathers  state  one  thing 
to  have  been  the  faith  of  the  Church,  and  one  state  the  contrary, 
and  that  in  relation  to  a  matter  not  expressly  defined  by  the 
Church,  and  a  member  construe  with  the  ninety-nine,  and 
against  the  one,  he  is  clearly  not  guilty  of  any  violation  of  the 
decree,  In  case  the  Church  has  defined  at  all,  then  he  must 
not  contradict  her  decree.  That  is  the  first  negative.  In  case 
she  has  not  defined,  then  the  member  must  not  contradict  the 
unanimous  consent  of  the  Fathers.  Both  these  negatives  are 
confined  to  faith  and  morals. 

If  we  take  the  decree  in  its  strict  grammatical  sense,  as 
Protestants  assume  to  take  it,  it  is  only  by  a  misconstruction, 
that  they  can  deduce  the  consequences  they  claim  to  flow  from 
it.  The  decree  does  not  say,  that  the  Church  shall  not  define 
an  article  of  faith,  because  a  few  Fathers  may  dissent  from  the 
overwhelming  majority  of  all,  if  such  a  case  should  exist.  Nor 
does  the  decree  say  that  individuals  shall  not  construe  contrary 
to  the  sense  of  the  few,  and  with  the  sense  of  the  majority  of 
the  Fathers.  The  decree,  in  its  terms,  relates  to  individuals, 
and  not  to  the  Church. 

If,  on  the  contrary,  we  give  the  decree  a  more  liberal  con- 
struction, and  say  that  the  word  unanimous  must  be  controlled 
by  the  general  scope  and  context,  and  is  equivalent  to  the  ex- 
pression "  general  consent,"  then  no  such  consequences  would 
follow,  as  contended.  In  either  case,  nothing  but  a  miscon- 
struction can  lead  to  the  consequences  mentioned. 

In  reference,  then,  to  the  135  volumes  enumerated  by  Mr. 
Campbell,  and  the  duty  of  the  Priesthood  to  interpret  the  Scrip- 
tures, as  well  as  tradition,  according  to  these,  Mr.  C.  thinks 
there  is  very  great  difficulty,  and  insists  that  no  man  ever  did 
or  can  read  these  volumes,  "  with  or  without  much  care."  It 
did  not  seem  to  me  to  be  an  impossible  task.  Most  lawyers,  in 
the  course  of  their  practice,  read  more  volumes  than  these  135. 
There  are  very  few  law  libraries,  that  do  not  contain  more  than 
this  number.  And  why  a  carefully  educated  priest  could  not, 
in  the  course  of  a  few  years,  read  these  volumes,  I  could  not  see. 

But  while  it  may  be  necessary  to  the  Catholic  controvertist 
to  have  read  all  contained  in  the  35  volumes  of  the  Fathers  in 


MISCELLANEOUS   OBJECTIONS.  315 

reference  to  disputed  points,  and  also  all  that  refers  to  the  same 
matters  in  the  Decretals,  and  the  other  volumes,  it  is  not  neces- 
sary for  every  priest  to  have  read  them  all,  in  order  to  know 
the  faith  of  his  Church,  so  that  he  may  know  what  to  teach. 

It  must  be  obvious  to  any  man  of  good  sense,  that  the  larger 
portions  of  these  volumes,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  must  re- 
late to  matters  once  discussed,  but  long  since  defined  by  the 
ohurch.  The  decrees  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  for  instance,  em- 
brace much  the  larger  portion  of  the  questions  discussed  in  the 
Fathers.  These  decrees,  with  the  reasons  for  them,  make  a 
volume  about  as  large  as  the  New  Testament.  With  the  aid 
of  proper  indexes,  it  is  just  as  easy  to  find  the  portions  applica- 
ble to  any  particular  point,  as  it  is  for  a  lawyer  to  consult  his 
library,  often  consisting  of  several  hundred  volumes.  Besides, 
there  are  compilations  of  the  principal  matters  contained  in  the 
Fathers.  For  example,  there  is  the  one  of  Messrs.  Berrington 
and  Kirk  of  three  volumes,  so  well  arranged  and  indexed,  that 
in  a  few  minutes'  search,  all  of  importance  relating  to  any  par- 
ticular point,  now  in  question,  can  be  found.  These  135  vol- 
umes are  intended  for  reference,  like  the  numerous  volumes  of 
Reports  in  a  law  library.  If  a  student  of  law  could  be  alarmed 
at  the  number  of  volumes  in  any  respectable  law  library,  he 
would  at  once  conclude  that  to  be  a  lawyer,  was  a  task  "  which 
never  was,  or  can  be  performed." 

But  to  any  one  who  has  any  knowledge  of  method  and  sys- 
tem, and  how  much  the  labor  of  search  can  be  abridged  by 
them,  such  an  argument  seems  like  one  addressed  to  ignorance, 
and  ought  not  to  be  found  in  the  mouth  of  an  educated  man.* 
By  the  aid  of  a  beautiful  arrangement,  we  can  turn  to  Webster's 
large  Dictionary,  and  out  of  some  thirty-five  thousand  words,  we 
can  select  any  one  we  wish,  and  find  its  definition,  in  a  single 

*  But  one  reflection  arises  in  reference  to  Mr.  C.  himself.  In  his  debates 
and  other  productions,  he  has  referred  to,  and  quoted  from,  a  much  greater 
number  of  volumes  than  these  135,  and  no  one  can  tell  from  the  manner  ir. 
which  the  quotations  are  made,  whether  he  has  read  these  works  or  not.  It 
would  at  first  seem  that  he  had.  But  we  have  a  right  to  suppose  that  he  has  relied 
upon  the  labor  of  others.  Now  why  Mr.  C.  will  not  allow  the  Catholic  clergy 
to  avail  themselves  of  the  labors  of  each  other,  when  they  are  all  aitthorizfi 
teachers  in  the  same  Church,  and  all  equally  responsible,  it  is  difficult  to  tell. 


316  MISCELLANEOUS    OBJECTIONS. 

moment  of  time.  A  lawyer,  with  a  library  containing  a  thou- 
sand volumes,  will  be  able,  by  the  aid  of  his  alphabetically  ar- 
ranged Digests  and  Indexes,  to  give  you  the  authorities  upon  a 
certain  point  of  law,  in  a  very  short  time.  All  professional  men 
avail  themselves  of  the  labors  of  each  other. 

And  when  I  looked  into  the  Protestant  rule,  I  found  the 
case,  as  regarded  myself,  still  worse.  That  theory  told  me  to 
trust  nobody ;  and  yet  necessity,  stronger  than  this  rule,  told 
me  I  must.  Under  the  Catholic  rule,  I  was  allowed  to  take  the 
true  construction  of  the  entire  law,  written  and  unwritten,  from 
the  authorized  teachers  of  the  Church.  The  labor  was  thrown 
upon  the  clergy,  a  carefully  and  thoroughly  educated  class  of 
men.  I  was  allowed  to  have  confidence  in  some  one.  But  un- 
der the  Protestant  theory,  I  was  not  allowed  to  do  so,  without 
a  palpable  violation  of  the  fundamental  rule  itself.  If  I  took 
any  thing  upon  trust,  I  gave  up,  so  far,  my  right  and  duty. 
God  had  made  my  mind  the  only  tribunal  for  the  construction  of 
His  Word,  according  to  this  theory.  This  Word  was  originally 
written  in  a  few^  different  languages.  It  was  my  duty  not  to 
trust  the  judgment  of  any  other  person  as  to  the  meaning  of 
this  Word.  If  I  took  the  translations  of  others,  I  departed 
from  the  theory.  I  knew  translation  must  come  before  my  pri- 
vate construction.  It  seemed  that  the  translator  had  to  con- 
strue both  languages.  And  as  I  found  so  great  a  discrepancy 
in  the  translations,  showing  great  ignorance  or  unfairness  in  the 
translator,  or  imperfection  in  the  languages,  or  all  together, 
(and  of  which  I  was  not  competent  to  judge,)  I  could  not  trust 
them,  or  any  of  them.  Still  I  found  that  "  without  faith  it  was 
impossible  to  please  God."  In  the  Catholic  version  I  found, 
"  Hail  Mary  full  of  grace,"  and  in  the  Protestant,  "  Hail  thou 
that  art  highly  favored,"  conveying  to  the  mind  very  different 
ideas.  This  is  only  one  of  many  instances.  Who  was  right  ? 
There  was  great  error  somewhere.  Mr.  Campbell  declared  that 
the  "  faults  and  imperfections  of  the  common  version,  were 
neither  few  nor  small."  (Debate  C.  &  R.,  160.)  True,  I  was 
assured  by  most  Protestants,  that  the  different  translations  were 
substantially  the  same,  in  reference  to  all  material  matters. 
But  in  all  the  discussions  I  read  between  Catholics  and  Protes- 
tants, and  between  Protestants  themselves,  I  found  much  dis- 


MISCELLANEOUS   OBJECTIONS.  317 

agreement  as  to  the  fidelity  of  translations,  and  much  discus- 
sion about  these  differences.  These  parties  considered  them 
material.  I  could  not  determine  whether  they  were  correct  or 
not,  from  any  knowledge  I  had  of  the  original  languages.  All 
I  could  certainly  say  was,  that  they  were  very  different. 
And  if  I  took  the  statements  made  on  other  occasions,  that  they 
were  substantially  similar,  contrary  to  my  own  judgment,  that 
they  were  substantially  very  different,  I  would  be  taking  the 
matter  on  trust,  just  like  a  Catholic. 

But  admitting  I  could  find  a  translation  that  I  knew  was 
correct,  it  had  to  be  construed.  But  this,  at  first,  would  seem 
to  be  an  easy  task.  Mr.  Campbell,  Mr.  Rice,  Mr.  Breckenridge, 
Dr.  Spring,  and  others  say  so.  Still,  after  all  that  they  could 
say,  and  had  said,  in  regard  to  the  Bible  being  a  plain  book 
and  easily  understood,  I  found,  either  that  they  were  not  men 
of  plain  good  sense,  else  they  would  not  have  differed  so  widely 
from  each  other,  or  there  was  more  difficulty  in  the  construc- 
tion of  this  wonderful  volume  than  they  seemed  to  understand 
themselves.  And  I  found  Mr.  Campbell  (whatever  might  be 
his  abstract  declarations)  "  eternally "  acting  as  if  he  did  not 
think  the  Bible  so  plain,  and  as  if  he  was  well  satisfied  that  he 
could  make  it  plainer ;  for,  in  his  efforts  to  do  this,  he  had 
written,  spoken,  and  published  matter  enough  to  make  many 
large  volumes  ;  not  as  many,  however,  as  the  135,  but  certainly 
approaching  somewhat  towards  the  35  volumes  of  the  Fathers. 
All  of  which  he  thought  useful  to  be  read.  And  as  for  other 
Protestant  writers,  they  were  equally  convinced,  that  they  could 
improve  upon  the  plainness  of  the  Bible.  So  certain  were  they 
of  that  fact,  that  the  different  sects  had  actually  drawn  up  writ- 
ten creeds,  much  plainer  than  the  Bible.  Mr.  Rice  himself 
stated  it  as  a  matter  of  "  fact ;  viz. :  it  is  impossible  to  know  any 
thing  of  a  man's  faith,  from  the  mere  fact  of  his  saying  that  he 
takes  the  Bible  alone  as  his  infallible  guide."  (Deb.  C.  &  R.,  774.) 

And  in  my  reflections  upon  this  subject,  I  could  not  but  rea- 
son in  this  way :  "  This  is  a  singular  state  of  case — a  very  anom- 
alous state  of  things.  Christ  was  the  most  important  lawgiver, 
and  promulgated  the  most  extensive  code  in  the  world ;  for  it 
embraces  more  matter,  and  more  people,  than  any  other.  Yet 
it  is  solemnly  alleged  by  one  party,  that  this  Infinite  Lawgiver 


318  MISCELLANEOUS    OBJECTIONS. 

made  no  provision  for  any  certain  and  authorized  translations 
and  construction  of  His  law.  He  left  all  in  perfect  chaos,  if 
chaos  can  be  perfect.  He  made  each  one  dependent  upon  him- 
self, (for  a  supreme  cannot  be  dependent,)  and  yet  He  placed 
him  in  such  a  position,  that  inexorable  necessity  would  force 
each  man  to  rely  upon  the  equally  uncertain  and  contradictory 
translations  of  different  parties,  or  choose  between  them,  with- 
out any  guide  or  qualification.  The  sense  of  the  most  impor- 
tant passage,  might  depend  entirely  upon  the  proper  translation 
of  a  single  word.  Was  there  ever  so  strange  a  system  ?  Did 
a  lawgiver  ever  promulgate  a  code,  and  organize  no  association 
to  be  governed  by  it  ?  If  he  did  so,  did  he  not  do  a  very  idle 
thing  ?  And  if  he  did  thus  organize  any  association,  was  there 
ever  a  case  where  he  left  no  tribunal  to  construe  his  law  ?  Was 
there,  in  short,  such  a  strange  anomaly  as  a  lawgiver  ever  pro- 
mulgating a  code  of  law,  that  had  no  system  in  it  ?  no  consist- 
ency ?  no  efficiency  ?  And  does  not  this  theory  make  Christ 
the  weakest,  the  most  confused,  and  incompetent  of  all  lawgiv- 
ers? What  beauty,  system,  harmony,  unity,  or  certainty,  is 
there  in  a  theory,  founded  and  based  in  suspicion  and  distrust 
of  everybody  but  yourself?  And  it  does  seem  to  me  that  the 
Catholic  theory  honors  Christ  as  a  lawgiver,  while  the  Protes- 
tant theory  degrades  Him,  as  such,  below  the  standard  of  mere 
human  legislators.  Is  it  true,  that  our  Lord  did  organize  a  vis- 
ible Church,  and  yet  leave  no  government  in  it  ?  If  so,  what 
sort  of  a  Church  then  is  it  ?  A  Church  so  poor,  so  little  entitled 
to  respect,  that  the  whole  united  association  is  absolutely  infe- 
rior to  each  separate  individual  member;  so  that  no  one  is 
bound  to  obey  or  believe  her  decision  just,  (in  the  contempla- 
tion of  the  theory  itself,)  unless  he,  in  his  supreme  judgment, 
shall  first  sanction  it.  A  theory  that  places  the  individual 
above  the  association,  and  yet  assumes  -to  call  it  a  Church. 
Where  shall  we  go  for  any  parallel,  or  for  any  imagined  practi- 
cal institution,  that  could  be  a  parallel  to  this  most  anomalous 
and  contradictory  theory  ?  " 

§  3.  The  same  matter  further  considered. 

But  Mr.  Campbell  says: 

"It  requires  a  whole  council  to  move  it  (the  Catholic  rule) 


MISCELLANEOUS    OBJECTIONS.  319 

and  apply  it  to  a  single  opinion."  *  *  *  *  "  Ought  there  not  to 
be  a  general  council  eternally  in  session  ?  "  (Deb.  C.  &  P.,  168.) 

This  objection  I  found,  upon  investigation,  to  be  based  upon 
an  erroneous  conception  of  the  practical  operation  of  the  Cath- 
olic system. 

Every  Catholic  Priest  is  &  subordinate  organ  of  the  Church. 
They  are  carefully  educated  and  instructed  in  her  doctrine. 
They  undergo  a  rigid  examination  before  they  are  ordained. 
They  are  immediately  responsible,  each  to  his  bishop,  and  each 
bishop  to  the  Pope.  From  the  decision  of  the  parish  priest,  an 
appeal  lies  to  the  bishop,  and  from  the  bishop  to  the  Pope. 
These  are  the  ordinary  organs  of  the  Church. 

In  the  nature  of  all  governments  over  men,  under  any  sys- 
tem of  law  practically  administered,  difficulties  must  arise,  as 
I  have  elsewhere  stated,  in  the  application  of  its  principles  to 
new  cases ;  and  these  new  cases  will  arise,  at  intervals,  so  long 
as  the  government  exists,  but  with  diminished  frequency.  This 
must  be  the  general  rule,  to  which  there  may  be  exceptions, 
caused  by  particular  circumstances.  It  may  happen,  indeed, 
that  a  great  number  of  new  questions  may  be  raised  at  the  same 
time,  and  that  at  a  remote  period  from  the  origin  of  the  govern- 
ment. This  was  the  case  at  the  Reformation. 

It  is  obvious  that  when  a  question  is  once  determined  by  the 
Church,  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  call  a  general  Council  to  re- 
affirm it.  It  may  be  advisable,  in  reference  to  particular  cases, 
when  the  Council  is  assembled  for  other  purposes,  for  the  Coun- 
cil to  do  so,  in  terms  still  more  explicit.  But  under  the  Catho- 
lic theory,  a  general  Council  can  only  be  required  for  the  purpose 
of  applying  the  principles  of  the  law  to  new  cases  which  come 
up,  and  about  which  there  may  exist  some  doubt  in  the  minds 
of  some  members  of  the  college  of  teachers.  In  regard  to  the 
question  determined  in  the  Council  of  Jerusalem,  the  difference 
of  opinion  arose  among  the  teachers.  Hence  the  necessity  of 
that  Council.  The  result  was  harmony  of  sentiment,  and  unity 
of  effort.  The  object  of  calling  general  Councils  is  still  the  same. 

For  these  reasons  general  Councils  are  not  called  except  some 
great  question  or  questions  require  them  to  be  convened.  After 
the  commencement  of  the  Reformation,  the  Council  of  Trent 
was  convoked.  This  Council  went  extensively  into  the  various 


320  MISCELLANEOUS    OBJECTIONS. 

questions  raised  by  the  Reformers  ;  and  the  result  of  its  labors 
has  been  to  settle,  so  far  as  Catholics  are  concerned,  all  the  ma- 
terial points  involved  in  the  controversy.  Since  that  period,  no 
occasion  has  arisen  that  called  for  the  convoking  of  a  general 
Council,  in  the  judgment  of  the  Church; 

As  all  Catholics  admit  that  the  decrees  of  all  general  Coun- 
cils, with  the  Pope's  concurrence,  and  also  the  doctrinal  decrees 
of  the  Pope,  approved  by  the  Church  at  large,  through  the  con- 
sent of  the  great  majority  of  the  bishops,  are  infallible,  it  is  not 
necessary  to  call  a  general  Council  for  the  definition  of  every 
article  of  faith.  It  is  the  solemn  act  of  the  Pope,  with  the  con- 
currence of  the  Church,  that  all  admit  to  be  infallible ;  and 
whether  this  concurrence  be  given  in  a  General  Council,  or 
through  the  bishops  dispersed,  is  not  material,  as  the  concur- 
rence is  still  given.  There  is  still  the  same  mind  and  judgment. 

The  reasons  given  by  Mr.  Campbell  why,  under  the  Catho- 
lic theory,  a  general  Council  should  be  "  eternally  in  session," 
was  that  "  every  age  has  its  errors  and  divisions,  and  every  indi- 
vidual has  his  doubts."  (Debate  C.  &  P.,  181.) 

Unless  these  errors  and  divisions  arise  in  the  Church,  as  a 
matter  of  course  she  would  take  no  cognizance  of  them.  If  they 
arise  among  Protestants,  they  are  outside  of  her  jurisdiction. 
Until  her  own  communion  is  disturbed,  she  has  no  reason  to  act. 
And  as  to  the  asserted  fact  that  "  every  individual  has  his 
doubts,"  it  may  be  very  true  as  regards  Protestants,  and  may 
not  be  true  as  applied  to  Catholics.  They  live  under  precisely 
opposite  theories.  But  if  a  Catholic  has  any  doubts,  he  may 
apply  to  his  pastor,  and  from  his  decision  he  may  appeal  to  his 
bishop,  and  from  him  to  the  Pope.  With  the  Catholic,  there  is 
a  very  simple  and  conclusive  method  of  solving  doubts,  while  the 
Protestant  begins  with  inquiring,  and  ends  still  inquiring.  I 
could  see  no  more  necessity  for  a  general  Council  to  be  "  eter- 
nally in  session,"  than  for  the  Council  of  Jerusalem  to  have  been 
continually  in  session  during  the  lives  of  the  apostles. 

An  objection  occurred  to  myself  as  to  the  authority  for  Cai 
dinals,  Archbishops,  and  Metropolitans.     Upon  examination,  I 
found  these  were  bishops  or  priests ;  and  that  the  additional 
powers  conferred  upon  them  were  part  and  parcel  of  the  pow- 
ers belonging  to  the  Pope.     In  the  Constitution  of  the  United 


MISCELLANEOUS   OBJECTIONS.  321 

States  it  is  first  provided  that  the  "  Executive  power  shall  be 
vested  in  a  President ; "  and  yet,  in  the  second  section  of  the 
same  article,  the  President  "  may  require  the  opinion,  in  writ- 
ing, of  the  principal  officer  in  each  of  the  executive  departments." 
These  "  executive  departments  "  are  but  part  and  parcel  of  the 
executive  power,  which  is  all  placed  in  "  a  President."  So  it 
is  in  the  Catholic  Church.  The  Pope  has  the  right  to  control 
allr  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons,  and  he  has  the  right,  there- 
fore, to  employ  the  aid  of  particular  agents  for  that  purpose. 
When  the  duties  of  an  Executive  become  too  arduous  for  him 
to  perform  alone,  he  has  the  right  to  employ  assistants,  who  only 
act  as  his  immediate  subordinates.  The  Pope,  therefore,  em- 
ploys the  aid  of  an  Archbishop  or  Metropolitan,  to  supervise  the 
bishops  within  certain  limits;  and  Cardinals  are  employed  to 
aid  him  by  their  counsel  and  advice.  As  our  President  has  the 
right  to  take  the  opinion  of  the  heads  of  departments,  so  the 
Pope  has  the  right  to  take  the  advice  of  all  Bishops,  Archbish- 
ops, Metropolitans,  and  Cardinals.  The  College  of  Cardinals  is 
the  most  accessible  advisory  body,  because  the  members  reside 
at  Rome,  and  are  easily  assembled.  This  right  of  the  Pope  is 
an  incident  inseparable  from  all  executive  power.  No  execu- 
tive power  over  any  considerable  body  of  men  could  be  practi- 
cally exercised  without  it.  Almost  every  officer,  under  any  sys- 
tem, has  the  right  to  appoint  deputies. 

Mr.  C.,  speaking  of  the  Protestant  rule  of  faith,  says :  "  Ours 
is  at  least  portable." 

If  by  this  he  means  it  is  easily  carried  about,  he  is  correct. 
But  I  apprehend,  from  the  connection  in  which  the  term  is 
found,  that  he  does  not  use  it  in  its  ordinary  sense.  As  I  un- 
derstand him,  he  means  to  say  that  it  is  much  easier  to  read  and 
understand  the  Bible  alone,  than  to  understand  it  with  the  aid 
of  these  135  volumes.  In  other  words,  I  understand  Mr.  C.  to 
take  the  ground  that  other  Protestants  take,  that  it  is  easier  to 
get  at  the  correct  construction  of  the  Bible  without,  than  with, 
any  external  exposition,  aid  or  assistance.  For  if  this  be  not 
the  meaning,  then  there  is  no  real  or  apparent  force  in  the  ar- 
gument. If  we  go  beyond  the  book  itself  in  any  case,  it  may 
be  advisable  to  read  and  study  all  the  principal  works  OD  both 
sides  of  every  Protestant  controversy  among  themselves.  For 
29 


322  MISCELLANEOUS    OBJECTIONS. 

if  the  points  of  difference  between  them  be  of  as  much  impor 
tance  as  each  party  thinks  they  are,  the  inquirer  ought  to  look 
into  all  with  due  diligence.  And  on  the  other  hand,  if  the  book 
alone  be  sufficient,  one  cannot  quite  so  well  understand  the  util- 
ity of  discussion  as  to  different  constructions. 

It  must  be  conceded  that  a  code  of  law  may  be  too  concise, 
or  it  may  be  too  prolix.  So  may  a  discourse,  or  a  dissertation. 
The  true  medium  is  difficult  to  attain.  He  who  can  express  the 
greatest  number  of  the  most  relevant  thoughts,  upon  a  given 
subject,  with  precision  and  certainty,  and  in  the  fewest  words, 
has  attained  this  medium.  Some  men  are  beautifully  brief  for 
want  of  thought.  Others  are  brief  because  they  extract  tho 
substance,  and  leave  out  the  proofs  and  reasons. 

In  regard  to  laws,  every  judge  and  lawyer  knows  that  the 
most  difficult  statutes  to  construe  are  those  that  are  the  most 
concise,  and,  therefore,  expressed  in  most  general  terms.  Broad 
principles  are  often  laid  down,  embracing  such  a  wide  and  va- 
ried number  of  cases,  that  it  becomes  a  very  difficult  matter  to 
apply  these  general  principles  to  such  a  multitude  of  individual 
cases.  Had  the  statute  been  more  full  and  explicit,  its  construc- 
tion would  have  been  more  easy.  In  short,  whoever  reflects 
upon  this  subject  carefully  and  impartially  will,  I  think,  arrive 
at  these  conclusions :  that  every  system  of  law  must  embrace 
all  cases  that  need  practical  regulation,  or  it  must  be  defective 
in  permitting  injustice  to  exist  without  a  remedy — that  this  regu- 
lation can  be  effected  in  one  of  three  ways :  1.  By  the  adoption 
of  a  very  concise  code,  expressed  in  general  terms,  and  embrac- 
ing only  general  principles.  2.  By  the  adoption  of  a  very  full 
and  minute  code,  dealing  more  in  details.  3.  By  the  adoption 
of  a  mixed  code,  containing  general  principles,  and  also  minute 
regulations.  In  all  these  cases  it  is  assumed  that  the  codes  are 
consistent  in  their  principles  one  with  another.  The  mixed  sys- 
tem is  ours,  both  with  reference  to  the  Federal  and  State  gov- 
ernments. 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  is  a  very  short  instru- 
ment, and  can  be  read  in  half  an  hour.  One  would  suppose 
that  its  construction  would  be  very  easy,  if  there  be  any  thing 
in  brevity  to  make  it  so.  Yet  how  many  great  men  have  ex- 
hausted their  powers  of  construction  upon  this  concise  fuuda- 


MISCELLANEOUS    OBJECTIONS.  323 

mental  law.  Has  there  been  no  difficulty  in  this  case  ?  Is  the 
proper  construction  of  that  instrument  most  certainly  attained 
by  reading  it  alone  ?  or  by  taking  the  decisions  of  our  courts, 
the  opinions  of  our  jurists,  and  statesmen,  together  with  the  in- 
strument itself  ? 

Suppose  a  lawyer,  in  addressing  the  Supreme  Court,  should 
use  this  language:  "May  it  please  the  Court.  In  this  case 
there  is  involved  a  very  grave  constitutional  question,  upon 
which  the  whole  case  will  turn.  In  preparing  myself  to  argue 
this  point,  and  in  giving  advice  to  my  client,  I  have  only  read 
and  studied  the  Constitution  itself.  I  preferred  to  go  to  the 
law  itself  to  know  what  were  the  rights  of  my  client.  I  pre- 
ferred to  go  to  the  pure  fountain  head,  and  from  that  uncor- 
rnpted  source,  to  drink  in  the  clear  waters  of  constitutional 
construction.  I  have  not  consulted  at  any  time,  either  the  vo- 
luminous decisions  of  this  court,  or  of  the  State  courts,  nor  have 
I  ever  read  one  word  of  what  Story,  Kent,  Seargent,  and  other 
voluminous  writers  have  said  upon  this  subject.  I  preferred 
the  shorter  course,  to  look  alone  to  the  Constitution  itself.  I 
have  read  it  over  a  number  of  times  in  a  day.  To  read  Story 
on  the  Constitution  only  once  would  have  taken  me  several 
days.  And  to  read  the  decisions  of  this  court,  would  have 
taken  a  much  longer  time." 

By  the  Court. — "  The  court  dislikes  to  interrupt  any  gentle- 
man, but  we  hope  you  will  proceed  to  the  point  at  once.  How 
you  prepared  yourself,  or  how  you  obtained  your  views  of  the 
Constitution,  is  not  important.  Lawyers  prepare  themselves  as 
they  please." 

Lawyer. — "  If  the  court  please,  I  will  then  come  to  the  point 
at  once.  There  are  several  acts  of  Congress,  the  first  passed  as 
early  as  July  31,  1789,  and  others  at  different  periods  as  late  as 
1799,  giving  to  the  United  States  priority  of  payment  over  pri- 
vate creditors  in  cases  of  insolvency,  and  in  the  distribution  of 
the  estates  of  deceased  debtors.  Now  I  hold  that  all  these  acts 
are  unconstitutional." 

By  the  Court. — "  This  court  cannot  hear  argument  upon 
that  question.  It  has  been  settled  by  repeated  adjudications. 
The  court  regrets  to  be  compelled  to  stop  an  able  argument, 
but  the  question  has  already  been  argued  by  able  men,  and  de- 


324  MISCELLANEOUS    OBJECTIONS. 

cided.  Had  you  examined  these  arguments  and  decisions, 
would  have  saved  both  yourself  and  your  client.  If  there  was 
no  difficulty  in  the  construction  of  the  Constitution,  or  if  there 
was  but  one  distinguished  man,  and  this  court  had  made  no  de- 
cisions, it  might  be  well  for  this  distinguished  man  to  confine 
his  attention  alone  to  the  Constitution.  But  the  case  is  differ- 
ent. Besides,  the  court  cannot  see  any  necessity  of  hearing  ar- 
gument, if  your  position  be  correct ;  for  this  court  would  scarcely 
learn  any  thing  from  you  if  it  be  true  that  you  could  learn 
nothing  from  others." 

And  is  not  this  reasoning  applicable  to  the  Church?  The 
whole  question,  as  I  conceive,  resolves  itself  into  this,  and  this 
only  :  Was  Christ  a  lawgiver,  and  is  there  any  Church  f  For 
if  there  be  a  Church,  there  must  be  government  in  it.  And  if 
there  be  government  in  the  Church,  there  must,  of  necessity, 
exist  the  executive  and  judicial  powers.  And  if  these  powers 
exist  in  the  Church,  they  must  be  supreme,  and  her  decisions 
are,  and  of  right  ought  to  be,  final  and  conclusive.  And  if  her 
jurisdiction  extend  to  any  part  of  the  law,  it  must  embrace  all 
questions  arising  under  it  that  require  to  be  determined  in  this 
mode  of  existence.  And  if  these  positions  be  true,  then  it  is 
important  to  know  what  the  Church  has  decided. 

And  it  must  be  obvious  that  the  number  and  character  of 
the  decisions  of  any  tribunal  must  be  increased  by  certain  cii 
cumstances  :  1.  By  the  concise  character  of  the  code.  2.  By 
the  extent  and  variety  of  subjects  embraced  in  it.  3.  By  the 
length  of  its  duration.  The  conciseness  of  the  New  Testament 
has  been  one  of  the  main  causes  of  the  difference  among  Prot- 
estants. But  this  conciseness  occasions  no  difficulty  under  the 
Catholic  rule.  The  decisions  of  the  Church  extend  the  general 
principles  to  all  new  cases  as  they  arise.  And  whereas  the 
Protestant  rule  leaves  every  difficulty  without  any  certain  reme- 
dy, the  Catholic  rule  provides  an  efficient  remedy  for  every  dif- 
ficulty. The  most  defective  governments  in  the  world  are  those 
which  provide  no  sufficient  remedy  for  wrongs — no  corrective 
for  errors.  And  in  proportion  as  proposed  remedies  are  ineffi- 
cient, so  in  proportion  does  the  government  approach  the  most 
unhappy  of  ah1  conditions — anarchy. 

And  when  we  go  from  the  officers  of  the  Church  to  the 


MISCELLANEOUS    OBJECTIONS.  325 

laity,  the  Catholic  system  is  far  more  simple,  certain,  and  prao 
tical  than  the  Protestant  rule.  The  inquirer,  under  both  rules, 
must  first  be  satisfied  that  Christianity  is  true.  Having  reached 
that  conclusion,  under  the  Catholic  rule,  the  inquirer  has  only 
two  points  to  determine ;  namely :  1.  Which  is  the  true  Church  ? 
2.  Is  he  bound  to  hear  her  ?  When  he  has  decided  these,  all 
others  follow  as  logical  consequences.  Not  so  with  the  Prot- 
estant. He  must,  under  his  rule,  arrive  by  his  individual  ex- 
amination at  all  the  truths  of  the  Scripture  necessary  to  be  be- 
lieved. And  if  it  be  true,  that  the  most  simple  historical  proof 
will  point  out  the  true  Church,  or  that  this  proof,  taken  in  con- 
nection with  the  simplest  commands  and  the  most  evident  dic- 
tates of  reason,  will  accomplish  this,  then  the  difference  is  most 
manifest.  And  even  conceding,  for  the  sake  of  the  argument 
only,  that  the  two  questions  the  inquirer  must  determine  before 
he  enters  the  Church,  be  as  difficult  as  those  the  Protestant 
must  decide,  still  the  amount  of  individual  investigation  is 
greatly  less.  The  Protestant  travels  the  whole  journey  alone  / 
while  the  Catholic  finds  his  guide,  and  follows  her. 

Every  true  fundamental  rule  must,  when  once  admitted,  lead 
to  the  certain  solution  of  all  difficulties.  If  it  do  not  possess 
this  efficient  and  operative  principle,  it  cannot  be  true.  Upou 
its  face,  it  is  defective ;  and,  therefore,  untrue.  In  every  system 
of  truth  there  are  certain  leading  original  principles,  from  which 
all  others  legitimately  flow,  as  logical  extensions.  In  every  sys- 
tem of  faith,  the  mind  must  first  be  committed  to  the  original 
principles  ;  and  afterwards,  to  their  legitimate  extensions. 

The  process  of  admitting  pev  ons  into  the  Church  in  the 
days  of  the  apostles,  was  based  upon  the  Catholic  rule.  On  the 
day  of  Pentecost,  St.  Peter  addressed  the  Jews,  who  themselves 
knew  of  the  miracles  of  Christ,  as  he  states  in  verse  22.  As  to 
the  evidences  of  Christ's  divine  character,  he  addressed  a  pre- 
pared audience.  And  not  only  so,  but  the  stupendous  miracle 
of  the  cloven  tongues  was  visible  and  palpable  to  all.  The 
quickness  of  conviction,  regarding  any  truth,  depends  upon 
both  the  weight  and  directness  of  the  testimony.  In  courts  of 
justice  we  see  this  verified  continually.  In  some  cases  the  wit- 
nesses are  few,  and  testify  directly  to  the  point.  In  other  cases, 
they  are  numerous,  and  their  testimony  is  not  direct,  but  cir- 


326  MISCELLANEOUS    OBJECTIONS. 

cumstantial,  and  much  more  diffuse.  But  by  putting  all  the 
circumstantial  facts  together,  the  result  is  certain,  and  even 
more  certain  than  in  many  cases  of  direct  evidence ;  for  a  few 
witnesses  may  be  perjured,  but  a  number  testifying  to  a  great 
variety  of  circumstances,  and  all  substantially  consistent  with 
each  other,  cannot  be  mistaken  or  false.  And  the  facts  them- 
selves cannot  lie. 

It  is,  then,  not  at  all  astonishing  that  on  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost, with  the  precedent  evidence  in  their  minds,  and  the  stu- 
pendous miracles  then  before  their  eyes,  that  multitudes  should 
have  believed  in  a  single  day,  after  hearing  a  single  discourse. 
The  testimony  was  not  only  direct,  (addressed  to  the  senses,) 
but  of  a  conclusive  character.  And  from  what  they  thus  saw 
and  heard,  they  were  compelled  to  arrive  at  these  conclusions : 
1.  That  Peter  was  a  true  witness.  2.  That  Christ  had  risen 
from  the  dead.  3.  That  the  apostles  were  His  agents,  as  they 
alleged. 

From  these  conclusions  it  resulted  inevitably  that  they  were 
bound  to  believe  whatever  the  apostles  taught.  The  miracles 
attested  the  veracity  of  the  apostles  and  of  Christ.  Whatever 
they  stated,  as  witnesses,  was  true.  And  this  is  the  reason  why 
they  at  once  cried  out,  "  what  shall  we  do  ?  "  They  only  asked 
to  know  their  duty,  as  pointed  out  by  the  Lawmaker,  through 
His  agents.  They  were  prepared  to  believe  any  thing,  simply 
upon  His  authority.  They  did  not  stop  to  inquire  about  the 
nature  of  baptism,  and  how  sins  were  remitted  in  it,  or  about 
other  matters,  but  they  took  all  this  upon  the  word  of  the  Di- 
vine Legislator. 

And  in  the  case  of  the  eunuch  it  was  the  same.  He  inquired 
for  a  guide.  Philip  acted  as  such.  The  eunuch  believed  that 
Jesus  was  the  Christ,  and  then  submitted  himself  to  Philip,  as 
His  authorized  agent. 

In  these  cases,  the  mind  stood  committed  to  two  radical  prin- 
ciples, from  which  every  thing  else  followed.  Whatever  might 
be  taught  afterwards,  they  must  believej  or  unsay  what  they 
had  previously  admitted.  They  were  only  taught  those  truths 
that  must  be  believed  before  baptism ;  and  these  truths  were  of 
such  a  character,  that  all  others  afterwards  propounded  by  the 
teaching  authority  must  also  be  believed. 


MISCELLANEOUS    OBJECTIONS.  327 

It  is  possible  that  Peter  and  Philip  may  have  taught  all  the 
doctrines  required  to  be  believed  at  any  time,  as  all  they  said  is 
not  stated.  But  it  is  far  more  probable,  from  all  the  circum- 
stances related,  that  they  did  not.  In  that  portion  of  Peter's 
discourse  which  is  recorded,  he  said  nothing  about  the  resurrec- 
tion from  the  dead,  and  many  other  doctrines.  And  as  to 
Philip's  discourse,  we  know  not  what  it  contained,  except  that 
baptism,  and  that  Jesus  was  the  Son  of  God,  were  mentioned. 
But  the  converts,  having  committed  themselves  to  the  authority 
of  the  Church,  were  bound  afterwards  to  receive  her  teaching. 
Consequently,  Hymeneus  and  Philetus,  after  being  admitted 
injbo  the  Church,  by  rejecting  her  teaching,  made  shipwreck 
of  the  faith.  And  as  the  cardinal  principles  of  the  system  were 
extended  to  new  cases  by  the  apostles,  the  members  of  the 
Church  were  bound  to  believe  these  extensions,  as  well  as  the 
original  principles  themselves. 

The  real  difference  in  the  two  fundamental  rules  is  this  : 
When  the  inquirer  receives  the  Catholic  rule  as  true,  his  labor 
is  at  an  end.  He  has  only  to  follow  his  guide.  But  when  he 
receives  the  Protestant  rule  as  true,  his  labor  is  but  fairly  begun. 

And  while  all  who  admit  the  Catholic  rule  must  come  in  the 
unity  of  the  faith  and  the  bond  of  peace,  it  is  precisely  different 
with  the  Protestant.  The  practical  result  has  been,  that  the 
Catholic  rule  has  kept  in  unity  the  overwhelming  majority  of  pro- 
fessed Christians ;  while  the  Protestant  rule  has  severed  and  di- 
vided those  who  held  it  into  many  discordant  sects.  One  rule 
must  lead  to  unity,  the  other  to  division.  And  it  is  the  great 
beauty  of  the  Catholic  fundamental  rule,  that  unity  must  follow 
a  concession  of  its  truth,  and  that  division  cannot  exist,  until  this 
fundamental  truth  is  denied. 

Another  objection  which  I  found  made  by  all  Protestant 
controvertists  was  this,  to  use  the  confident  language  of  Mr. 
Breckenridge :  "  But  when  you  have  got  the  decrees,  confes- 
sions, bulls,  <fcc.,  of  this  infallible  judge,  are  they  better  or 
more  clear  than  our  Bible  ?  Can  your  judge  be  more  lucid  than 
our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ  ?  And  after  you  have  got- 
ten these  infallible  judgments,  do  they  not  also  need  an  inter- 
preter as  much  as  the  Bible  ?  "  (Con.  H.  &  B.,  13.) 

I  have  already  given  my  reasons  why  a  lawgiver ,  however 


328  MISCELLANEOUS    OBJECTIONS. 

competent,  could  not  make  a  law,  in  advance,  as  plain  in  each 
particular  case,  as  could  a  judicial  tribunal,  possessing  the  same 
capacity,  after  the  particular  case  had  arisen.  Were  a  "lawyer 
to  use  such  an  objection  in  reference  to  the  decisions  of  the  Su- 
preme Court  of  the  United  States  upon  the  construction  of  the 
Constitution,  he  would  be  considered  as  quite  green  ;  and  so 
evident  would  be  his  verdancy,  that  he  would  be  set  down  as 
knowing  very  little  of  common  sense,  and  less  of  his  profession. 
And  what  is  very  remarkable,  is  the  fact  that  Mr.  B.  belonged 
to  a  Church  that  had  a  creed,  considered  by  her  as  more  plain 
than  the  Bible,  or  else  there  was  no  sense  in  making  it.  If  the 
creed  could  not  give  a  more  definite  and  certain  exposition  oj* 
the  faith  of  Presbyterians  than  the  Bible,  surely  better  not  re- 
fine upon  that  which  is  already  as  plain  as  possible.  Conceding 
the  plainness  of  the  Bible,  it  is  exceedingly  difficult  to  put  the 
two  positions  together,  except  upon  the  ground  that  the  creed 
and  the  Bible,  though  both  equally  plain,  expressed  very  differ- 
ent things. 

"  But  men  have  misconstrued  the  language  of  the  Bible  to 
such  an  extent,"  Mr.  B.  might  well  reply,  as  Mr.  Rice  assumed 
in  substance,  "  that  it  becomes  indispensable  to  use  other  language 
to  make  ourselves  understood."  True.  And  this  reason  ap- 
plies as  well  to  the  Catholic  Church  as  to  any  other ;  and,  there- 
fore, makes  her  definitions  not  only  necessary,  but  practically 
efficient,  in  giving  a  clear  idea  of  her  faith.  And  from  this  I 
conclude,  that  however  plain  we  may  take  the  Bible  to  be,  it 
still  can  be  misconstrued  ;  and  when  so  misconstrued,  a  judicial 
decision  upon  this  misconstruction  can  make  the  Bible  still  plain- 
er, in  reference  to  that  particular  case.  And  if  the  Catholic 
idea  be  correct,  that  the  Bible  contains  many  things  easy,  and 
some  things  hard,  to  be  understood,  then  there  is  still  more  rea- 
son and  necessity  for  these  definitions. 

The  fact  is  palpable  that  all  parties  understand  that  the  Cath- 
olic Church  puts  a  very  different  construction  upon  the  Scrip- 
tures from  that  of  Protestants.  And  Protestants  also  under- 
stand the  differences  between  them,  while  they  do  not  find  the 
Bible  so  clear  as  their  creeds.  Somehow  or  other,  all  parties 
have  managed  to  make  themselves  understood,  in  most  cases  at 
least ;  while  they  have  wholly  disagreed  as  to  the  meaning  of 


MISCELLANEOUS    OBJECTIONS.  329 

the  Bible.     Luther  had  no  difficulty  in  understanding  the  Pope, 
when  the  latter  condemned  his  propositions. 

It  is  true  that  decrees  and  bulls  need  construction  ;  but,  be- 
ing decisions  upon  particular  points  after  they  arise,  and  made 
with  a  single  eye  to  them,  they  are,  as  a  general  thing,  as  easily 
understood  as  the  decrees  of  the  Council  of  Jerusalem.  And 
when  there  is  any  difficulty  in  any  case,  there  is  always  a  living, 
speaking,  and  accessible  tribunal  to  explain  these  decrees,  until 
they  are  understood.  Decisions  of  courts  are  sometimes  mis- 
construed. In  such  cases  the  court  can  set  the  matter  right. 
The  Church  is  always  as  able  to  construe  her  decrees  as  she  is 
to  make  them.  Her  living  organs  have  always  this  right.  And 
in  the  very  few  cases  where  any  difficulty  occurs  among  Catho- 
lics, it  is  easily  adjusted. 

§  4.  The  vicious  circle. 

I  come  now  to  examine  an  objection  made  originally,  as  Dr. 
Milner.says,  by  Dr.  Stillingfleet,  and  repeated  in  all  the  Prot- 
estant works  I  have  read.  It  is  so  much  esteemed  by  Protestant 
writers,  that  Dr.  Watts,  in  his  Treatise  on  Logic,  thus  states  it : 

"  A  vicious  circle  is  when  two  propositions,  equally  uncer- 
tain, are  used  to  prove  each  other.  Thus  Papists  prove  the  au- 
thority of  the  Scriptures  by  the  infallibility  of  their  church,  and 
then  prove  the  infallibility  of  their  church  from  the  authority  of 
the  Scriptures." 

Some  illustrate  this  definition  by  saying,  "  this  is  like  John 
giving  a  character  to  Thomas,  and  Thomas  a  character  to  John." 

When  I  first  read  this  position,  it  seemed  to  strike  me  as 
expressed  with  the  smoothness  and  sententious  brevity  of  a  mere 
catch.  And  my  subsequent  reflections  satisfied  me  that  it  was 
so.  As  tho  objection  is  so  much  relied  upon,  it  will  require 
more  examination. 

The  essence  of  this  objection  regards  the  competency  of  wit- 
nesses,  and  not  propositions  of  logic. 

The  distinct  ground  is  substantially  taken,  that  conceding, 
for  the  sake  of  the  argument  only,  the  proposition  to  be  true, 
that  Christ  did  create  an  infallible  Church,  and  did  commit  His 
Word  to  her  keeping,  still  she  cannot  prove,  by  her  testimony, 
the  authenticity  and  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  or  either  of 


330  MISCELLANEOUS    OBJECTIONS. 

these  facts,  although  made  the  special  depositary  and  guardian 
of  the  Word  y  or  if  she  do  this,  then  she  excludes  herself  from 
all  evidence  contained  in  the  Word  in  favor  of  her  claims  to  in- 
fallibility. This  position  certainly  places  the  Church  in  a  pre- 
dicament. The  proposition,  if  true,  at  once  sweeps  her  from 
existence. 

If  she  should  refuse  to  give  her  testimony,  she  would  be  at 
once  told  that  she  could  not  be  the  true  Church.  "  The  reason 
why  you  refuse  to  testify  is  evident.  You  do  not  know  the 
facts.  You  did  not  exist  when  they  occurred.  You  are  too 
young.  You  cannot  possibly  be  the  true  Church.  She  did 
know  the  facts,  because  she  lived  when  they  took  place.  Christ 
Himself  was  the  Founder  of  the  true  Church,  and  committed 
His  law  to  her  keeping  for  the  very  reason,  He  would  not  com- 
mit it  to  aliens  and  strangers.  And  as  He  committed  it  to  her, 
He  endorsed  her  credibility,  and  imposed  upon  her  the  duty  of 
testifying,  because  she  alone  knew  the  facts,  and  could  testify  as 
to  them.  You  are  a  contumacious  witness,  and  the  true  Church 
cannot  be  such.  Even  according  to  your  own  theory,  you  know 
the  truth,  and  have  not  the  courage  to  do  your  duty.  You  can- 
not, therefore,  be  the  true  Church." 

But  if  the  Church  testify,  then  she  is  in  no  better  position, 
because  she  is  at  once  met  in  this  way :  "  You  cannot  use  this 
Word  to  prove  that  you  are  the  true  Church,  because  you  have 
proven  its  authenticity  and  inspiration.  Therefore,  as  you  can- 
not use  the  Word  to  sustain  your  claims,  and  as  we  reject  all 
other  testimony,  it  rather  occurs  to  us  that  we  have  you." 

And  certainly  this  arbitrary  rule  for  the  exclusion  of  testi- 
mony does  overwhelm  the  true  Church,  wherever  that  Church 
may  be  found.  She  cannot  use  the  Scriptures  without  proof  ; 
and  when  she  proves  them,  she  is  not  allowed  to  use  them.  And 
to  find  adequate  proof  outside  the  Church  of  Scriptures  commit- 
ted  alone  to  her,  is  a  difficulty  equally  great.  Turn  any  way 
she  will,  she  is  met  by  one  or  the  other  horn  of  this  dilemma. 

The  essence  of  the  objection  consists  in  the  rejection  of  testi- 
mony, however  credible  and  numerous  the  witnesses,  simply  upon 
the  ground  that  it  is  mutual.  And,  therefore,  if  John  give 
Thomas,  and  he  give  John,  a  good  character,  their  testimony 
must  be  rejected,  though  they  both,  being  good  men,  did  swear 


MISCELLANEOUS    OBJECTIONS  331 

the  truth.  And  if  John  the  Baptist  gave  testimony  of  Christ, 
and  Christ  of  him,  their  testimony  must  be  excluded,  because 
they  both  gave  each  other  good  characters.  And  if  I  have  two 
good,  honest  neighbors,  who  give  each  other  good  characters, 
because  they  could  not  do  otherwise  and  tell  the  truth,  I  must 
discard  their  statements  as  false,  simply  because  two  good  men 
happen  to  know  each  other,  and  tell  the  truth  accordingly. 

Had  Mr.  Starkie  or  Mr.  Greenleaf,  in  their  profound  trea- 
tises upon  the  law  of  evidence,  or  if  our  courts  of  justice  had  laid 
down  a  rule  so  arbitrary  and  sweeping,  regarding  the  compe- 
tency of  witnesses,  the  consequences  of  such  a  rule  would  be 
very  speedily  tested.  Under  it  two  good  men  never  could  tes- 
tify for  each  other,  although  the  knowledge  of  the  facts  rested 
alone  with  them.  The  mere  fact  that  two  good  men  give  each 
other  good  reputations,  is  not  the  slightest  evidence  to  show 
that  the  testimony  is  false.  And  the  fact  that  two  men  testify 
for  each  other,  in  different  cases,  in  reference  to  different  mat- 
ters, is  no  evidence  that  the  witnesses  are  unworthy  of  credit. 
To  discredit  the  witnesses,  you  must  show  a  fraudulent  combi- 
nation to  testify  for  each  other.  The  proof  of  this,  when  made 
out  from  the  admissions,  conduct,  and  character  of  the  witness- 
es, will  destroy  their  testimony.  But  if  the  witnesses  be  other- 
wise worthy  of  belief,  the  circumstance  of  their  mutually  testify- 
ing for  each  other  will  not  destroy  their  testimony.  When  the 
apostles,  by  their  own  testimony,  proved  the  miracles  and  resur- 
rection of  Christ,  and  then,  by  His  declarations,  proved  the 
truth  of  the  religion  they  preached,  did  this  destroy  their  testi- 
mony ?  Surely  not.  All  depended  upon  the  credibility  of  the 
witnesses. 

But  weak  as  this  objection  appeared  to  me,  when  applied  to 
single  witnesses,  it  was  still  weaker  when  applied  to  associated 
bodies  of  men.  Who  keeps  the  records  of  a  nation  but  the  gov- 
ernment of  that  nation  ?  To  whom  will  you  apply  for  correct 
copies  of  our  Constitution,  but  to  our  own  government  ?  * 

*  I  find  appended  to  Rickey's  copy  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
a  fac-simile  of  the  certificate  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  in  these  words : 

"  DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE, 

July  20/A,  1846. 
"  This  edition  of  the  Constitution  and  amendments  has  been  critically  com- 


332  MISCELLANEOUS   OBJECTIONS. 

Would  you  seek  them  among  the  enemies  of  the  country  ?  And 
when  you  want  authentic  copies  of  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme 
Court,  will  you  apply  to  strangers,  or  to  the  clerk  who  keeps 
the  records  of  the  Court  ?  And  if  you  wish  to  get  at  the  true 
decision  of  a  Court,  will  you  not  go  to  its  own  records,  kept  by 
itself?  And  why  can  we  trust  Courts,  not  only  to  keep  their 
own  records,  but  to  certify  that  they  are  true,  and  have  been 
faithfully  kept? 

The  reason  why  all  associated  bodies  of  men,  as  well  as  all 
courts  and  legislative  bodies,  must  be  trusted,  is  because  they 
have  the  knowledge  of  the  facts — have  no  interest  to  distort 
them,  for  they  are  presumed  to  act  conscientiously,  and  are  com- 
posed of  so  many  different  individuals  cognizant  of  the  same 
facts,  and  belonging  to  the  same  body,  that  there  is  a  security 
against  mistake  and  fraud  not  always  found  in  the  case  of  single 
persons.  Until  all  the  members  of  such  an  association  (knowing 
the  facts)  can  be  either  corrupted  or  deceived,  a  falsehood  can- 
not be  put  upon  the  record  and  kept  there.  We  are  compelled 
to  place  confidence  somewhere ;  and  if  we  cannot  trust  associ- 
ated bodies  of  men,  public  tribunals,  and  legislative  bodies,  to 
keep  their  own  records,  and  prove  their  genuineness,  whom  can 
we  trust  ?  If  there  be  any  better  security  or  testimony,  I  can- 
not conceive  where  it  can  be  found  among  men.  And  until 

pared  with  the  original  in  this  department,  and  found  to  be  correct  in  text,  letter, 
and  punctuation.  It  may,  therefore,  be  relied  upon  as  a  standard  edition.  (The 
small  figures  designating  the  clauses  are  not  in  the  original,  and  are  added  merely 
for  convenience  of  reference.) 

"JAMES  BUCHANAN, 

"  Secretary  of  State. 
"  By  the  Secretary, 

"N.  P.  TRIST,  Chief  Clerk." 

The  government  itself  was  made  the  depositary  of  the  Constitution,  and 
through  its  own  officers,  gives  its  own  testimony  as  to  the  existence  of  tho  orig- 
inal, and  the  correctness  of  the  copy  ;  and  then,  by  the  instrument  itself,  proves 
the  extent  and  character  of  its  own  powers.  Here  we  have  the  viciom  circle 
complete  ;  though  I  suppose  the  distinguished  Secretary  of  State  did  not  perceive 
the  very  singular  fact,  that  in  following  the  universal  practice  of  all  governmental 
institutions,  he  was  violating  a  rule  of  logic,  solemnly  laid  down  as  such,  by 
the  acute  Dr.  Watts.  What  would  the  argument  drawn  from  this  imaginary 
vicious  circle  be  worth,  in  the  estimation  of  an  enlightened  Court  ? 


MISCELLANEOUS   OBJECTIONS.  333 

some  wise  person  shall  suggest  better  evidence,  we  must  follow 
that  sensible  rule  of  law,  and  take  the  best  the  case  allows. 

And  so  it  is  with  the  Church.  Christ  committed  His  law  to 
her.  He  would  hardly  have  committed  it  to  His  enemies,  to 
aliens,  and  strangers.  This  would  have  been  a  very  idle  act. 
The  law,  then,  being  committed  to  the  Church,  to  whom  can  we 
apply  for  correct  copies  of  the  law  but  to  her  ?  She  has  the  cus- 
tody— she  knows  the  facts.  Shall  we  go  to  the  enemies  of  the 
Church  for  authentic  copies  of  a  law  they  always  hated  and  op- 
posed ?  Shall  we  ask  them  to  prove  facts  of  which  they  know 
nothing,  and  whose  existence  they  deny  ?  Who  can  be  a  credi- 
ble and  able  witness  of  the  facts  but  the  party  who  knows  them  V 

And  if  we  can  trust  civil  governments,  legislative  bodies,  and 
judicial  tribunals,  why  can  we  not  trust  the  Institution  of  Christ? 
Did  He  do  His  work  so  badly  that  His  Church  is  the  poorest, 
and  most  unreliable  of  all  institutions  ?  Surely,  if  Christ  com- 
mitted His  Word  to  the  Church,  by  that  very  act  He  did  en- 
dorse her  veracity,  and  we  are  bound  to  believe  her.  And  it 
was  one  of  the  most  weighty  reasons  for  organizing  a  visible 
and  infallible  Church,  that  our  Lord  might  commit  His  law  to 
her  keeping. 

And  is  there  the  slightest  reason  for  invalidating  her  testi- 
mony, because  in  the  Written  Word  we  find  a  portion  of  the 
proofs  that  she  is  the  infallible  Church  ?  Where  should  we  find 
those  proofs,  but  in  part  in  this  Word  ?  Suppose  the  proposi- 
tion to  be  true,  for  the  sake  of  the  argument  only,  that  Christ 
did  organize  an  infallible  Church,  and  that  He  did  commit  His 
law  to  her  keeping,  to  whom  can  we  apply  but  to  her  ?  She 
alone  had  the  custody — she  alone  knows  the  facts.  If  we  must 
get  the  Scriptures  from  the  true  Church,  (and  where  else,  in 
God's  name,  can  we  expect  to  find  them  ?)  shall  we  reject  all 
the  testimony  of  these  Scriptures  as  to  the  true  Church  ?  The 
moment  we  concede  that  an  infallible  Church  is  possible,  we  can- 
not, by  an  arbitrary  rule  of  false  logic,  reject  proper  testimony 
to  prove  the  fact.  How  then  can  true  copies  of  the  Scriptures 
be  proven,  and  the  true  Church  ascertained,  but  by  the  very 
method  adopted  by  the  Catholic  Church  ?  Whether  she  be  the 
true  Church  or  not,  must  not  the  true  Church  act  as  she  does? 
Could  the  true  Church  do  otherwise  ?  And  until  some  wise 


334  MISCELLANEOUS   OBJECTIONS. 

wit  will  show  us  a  more  able  and  reliable  witness  than  the  true 
Church  of  Christ,  as  to  facts  peculiarly  within  her  own  knowl 
edge,  we  must,  with  all  due  deference,  believe  her. 

But  I  could  not  see  how  the  Protestant  theory  avoided  the 
supposed  difficulty  of  the  vicious  circle,  when  they  wished  to 
prove  the  authenticity  of  the  Scriptures,  and  which  was  the 
true  Church,  or  any  other  fact  relating  to  the  Church.  And 
although  Dr.  Spring  used  this  vicious  circle  as  an  argument 
against  the  Catholic  Church,  he  very  unwittingly  made  admis- 
sions that  completely  neutralized  his  argument.  He  first  tells 
us,  in  speaking  of  the  New  Testament  Scriptures,  that  "  copies 
of  them  were  circulated  and  compared  with  the  originals,  until 
the  evidence  was  satisfactory  to  the  churches  that  they  were 
both  authentic  and  genuine."  (Dissertation  27.) 

All  these  acts  were  done  in  the  churches,  the  sufficiency  of 
the  evidence  was  decided  by  them,  and  by  whom  then  can  we 
prove  the  authenticity  and  genuineness  of  those  copies  but  by 
the  Church  ?  In  reference  to  the  origin  of  the  Scriptures  he 
says :  "  The  divine  origin  of  the  sacred  books  is  not  proved 
simply,  nor  principally,  from  historical  testimony.  Historical 
testimony  has  its  place,  and  it  is  no  unimportant  place  in  the 
argument."  (Dis.  28.)  The  learned  Divine  having  referred  us 
to  the  Church  for  proof  of  the  divine  origin  of  the  sacred  books, 
so  far  as  the  important  part  of  historical  testimony  is  concerned, 
how  does  he  propose  to  ascertain  this  true  Church,  HIS  WITNESS 
to  prove  the  authenticity  and  genuineness  of  these  Scriptures  ? 
He  insists  it  must  be  proved  by  the  Scriptures  alone. 

It  will  be  readily  seen  that  this  arbitrary  rule  is  based  essen- 
tially upon  the  same  ground  as  those  of  David  Hume  and  Dr. 
Paley,  for  the  exclusion  of  the  only  witnesses  who  could,  from, 
their  position,  know  the  facts.  The  Infidel  and  Protestant  po- 
sitions are  in  substance  precisely  the  same,  all  having  in  view 
the  very  same  end ;  viz. :  the  suppression  of  testimony;  They 
have  both  sought  most  diligently  for  some  arbitrary  and  pre- 
scriptive rule,  by  which  they  could  effectually  close  the  mouths 
of  all  witnesses  who  testify  to  facts  against  their  particular 
views, 


MISCELLANEOUS   OBJECTIONS.  335 

§  5.   Can  the  Church  decide  her  own  cases  f 

Another  objection  is  made,  based  essentially  upon  a  very 
gross  misapplication  of  a  principle  only  applicable  to  individuals^ 
and  not  to  associations  of  men.  I  will  state  it  in  the  language 
of  Mr.  Campbell : 

"In  all  monarchies,  save  that  of  Rome  and  Mahomet,  a 
judge  is  not  constitutionally  a  judge  of  his  own  case.  But  the 
Roman  judge  of  controversy  is  the  whole  church,  says  my 
learned  opponent,  and  her  councils  affirm  with  him.  The  whole 
church  judging  then  between  what  parties?  Herself  and  the 
heretics ! !  What  a  righteous  and  infallible  and  republican 
fudge,  is  the  supreme  judge  of  controversy  in  the  Catholic 
church  !  The  controversy  is  between  two  parties — the  church 
or  the  clergy  on  one  side,  and  the  heretics  or  the  Reformers  on 
the  other,  as  they  may  happen  to  be  called ;  say  the  church  and 
heretics.  And  who  is  umpire  and  who  is  supreme  judge  of 
both  ?  One  of  the  parties,  indeed,  the  church  herself!  This  is 
the  archetype — the  beau  ideal  of  civil  liberty,  and  republican 
government  in  the  Supreme  Roman  hierarchy."  (Debate  C.  & 
P.,  280.) 

This  objection  was  originally  made  by  the  early  Reformers, 
as  also  by  the  Remonstrants  at  the  Synod  of  Dort.  It  was  also 
made  by  Mr.  Breckenridge.  (Con.  H.  &  B.,  133.)  And  I  find 
it  in  most  Protestant  controvertists. 

From  the  very  emphatic  and  pointed  language  of  Mr.  Camp- 
bell,  and  the  extreme  emphasis  he  puts  upon  the  case,  he  must 
have  considered  it  a  most  unheard  of  usurpation  for  a  state, 
sovereignty,  or  church,  to  judge  in  her  own  case. 

It  is  true,  that  the  laws  of  all  civilized  countries  lay  down 
the  principle,  that  a  man  cannot  be  a  judge  in  his  own  case. 
But  from  all  my  reading,  and  from  all  ray  intercourse  with  in- 
telligent men,  I  never  knew  that  this  principle,  intended  only 
for  individuals,  could  be  applied  to  States,  or  Churches,  or  to 
any  other  associated  bodies  of  men,  until  I  read  Mr.  Campbell. 
A  father,  by  the  laws  of  all  countries,  is  allowed  to  decide  be- 
tween himself  and  his  child,  as  to  any  disobedience  of  his  com- 
mands.  And  a  State,  Church,  or  association,  bears  the  same 
relation  to  those  under  its  jurisdiction.  The  right  to  decide  its 


336  MISCELLANEOUS    OBJECTIONS. 

own  cases,  I  had  always  supposed,  was  an  attribute  of  supreraa 
cy,  inherent  in  the  very  nature  of  every  society.  Every  crim- 
inal offence  is  committed  against  the  peace  and  dignity  of  the 
State — is  prosecuted  in  her  name — is  determined  by  courts  of 
her  own  creation,  and  composed  of  judges  appointed  and  paid 
by  herself,  and  who  act  only  as  her  agents.  And  yet  is  this 
tyranny  ?  Because  an  individual,  when  he  has  an  adverse  in- 
terest against  another,  is  not  allowed  to  decide  in  his  own  case, 
is  there  the  semblance  of  reason  to  say,  that  the  State  is  not  an 
impartial  judge  in  her  own  cases  ?  What  interest  has  the  State 
in  convicting  an  innocent  man  ?  Is  she  not  the  equal  protector 
of  all?  Can  she  ask  any  thing  but  what  is  just?  Is  it  not  de- 
rogatory to  her  dignity,  and  to  the  people  whom  she  governs 
for  her  to  oppress  the  poorest  or  meanest  of  her  citizens  ?  It 
certainly  is,  in  the  contemplation  of  the  theory  whereon  all  gov- 
ernment is  based.  As  a  father  is  compelled,  in  justice  to  his 
family,  to  inflict  punishment,  so,  the  State  is  compelled  to  exe- 
cute justice  upon  individuals. 

And  is  it  not  so  with  the  Church  ?  And  is  it  not  so  in  all 
associations  of  men  ?  What  interest  has  the  Church  in  unj  ustly 
expelling  a  member  ? 

She  does  expel  members  for  just  cause,  but  even  then,  with 
great  reluctance.  If  there  be  any  sincerity  in  the  church,  (and 
how  can  she  exist  without  it  ?)  she  must  desire  to  increase  her 
fold.  Nothing  but  a  sacred  regard  to  principle  can  induce  her 
to  expel  members.  She  is  bound  by  every  sacred  obligation  to 
keep  the  faith  pure.  The  spread  of  impure  principles  is  no  ob- 
ject with  her.  The  preservation  of  peace  within  her  own  flock 
is  her  duty.  She  would  be  recreant  to  her  mighty  trust  if  she 
did  not  do  it.  And  that  duty  is  to  do  equal  and  exact  justice 
to  the  faith,  and  to  each  member.  She  stands  impartial.  While 
it  is  her  wish  to  save  the  faith  from  contamination,  it  is  equally 
her  wish  to  save  souls. 

What  interest  had  St.  Paul  in  delivering  Hymeneus  and 
Alexander  over  to  Satan,  that  made  him  a  partial  judge  ?  And 
when  Titus  was  commanded  by  him  to  reject  heretics,  was 
Titus  a  partial  judge?  And  as  heretics  must  be  expelled,  I 
should  really  like  to  know  where  we  are  to  go  for  a  tribunal. 
Shall  the  Church  call  in  strangers  and  aliens,  to  try  her  own 


MISCELLANEOUS    OBJECTIONS.  337 

children  f  Was  such  a  thing  ever  done  ?  Shall  she  call  in  he? 
enemies  ?  If  not,  whom  shall  she  call  in  ?  Would  not  such  a 
system  of  church  government  be  unheard  of  and  impracticable  ? 
It  would  certainly  be  very  troublesome  to  the  outside  world 
who  would  be  called  on  to  try  cases  very  often. 

And  what  sort  of  a  true  Church  would  that  be,  that  was  so 
much  more  defective  than  the  constitution  of  any  civil  State — 
that  possessed  so  little  dignity  and  impartiality — was  entitled  lo 
so  little  respect — was  so  feeble  that  there  were  "  none  so  poor 
to  do  her  reverence " — so  that  she  must  depend  upon  aliens, 
strangers,  and  heretics  to  determine  her  own  faith — to  decide 
for  her  own  children  ?  I  cannot,  I  must  confess,  form  a  concep- 
tion of  such  a  Church,  any  more  than  I  could  of  a  sovereignty, 
calling  in  the  citizens  or  subjects  of  other  States  to  judge  her 
own  people. 

But  I  could  find  no  Protestant  sect  that  did  not,  at  least  in 
/orra,  act  upon  this  same  condemned  principle.  The  Synod  of 
Dort  took  the  responsibility  to  try  and  excommunicate  the  Re- 
monstrants, against  their  protest.  So,  the  Methodists,  Presby- 
terians, Baptists,  and  all  others,  so  far  as  they  pretend  to  exer- 
cise governmental  power  at  all,  even  in  mere  form,  assume  and 
act  upon  this  principle,  and  never  call  for  outside  help.  Even 
in  Mr.  Campbell's  Church,  it  was  so.  For  each  individual 
church,  "  with  its  bishops  and  deacons,  is  the  highest  tribunal 
on  earth  to  which  an  individual  Christian  can  appeal ;  that  who- 
soever wih1  not  hear  it,  has  no  other  tribunal  to  which  he  can 
look  for  redress."  "  We  know  whom  to  exclude."  "  Such  a 
one  has  denied  the  faith,  and  we  reject  him."  (Christianity 
Restored,  122,  123.  Cited  C.  &  R.'s  Debate,  804.) 

This  looks  very  much,  I  must  say  exactly,  like  trying  its  own 
cases  by  each  individual  church. 

I  cannot  conceive  of  a  true  Church,  or  even  one  claiming  to 
be  such,  that  would  consider  itself  so  poor,  weak,  and  ignorant, 
as  to  call  in  outsiders,  to  ascertain  its  own  faith.  It  would  be 
a  most  exquisite  true  Church  !  And  in  considering  these  last 
two  objections,  I  was  often  reminded  of  William  Law's  answer 
to  Bishop  Ho'adly's  sermon :  "  Your  Lordship  tells  Dr.  Snape, 
that  he  sayeth  and  unsayeth,  to  the  great  diversion  of  the  Ro- 
man Catholics." 
30 


338  MISCELLANEOUS    OBJECTIONS. 

§  6.  Has  the  Church  mutilated  the  Scriptures  f 

Among  the  charges  made  by  Dr.  Spring  is  one,  which,  if 
true,  destroys  her  character  as  a  trustworthy  guardian  of  Scrip- 
ture, and  as  a  credible  witness.  He  says : 

"  The  Romanists  have  altered  and  amended,  and  so  mistrans- 
lated the  Bible,  as  to  render  it  conformable  to  their  own  stand- 
ard." (Dis.  74.) 

This  charge  I  was  wholly  incompetent  to  determine  myself. 
It  was  of  a  character  so  serious,  that  a  fair-minded  man  would 
not  lightly  make  it ;  and  it  alleged  the  existence  of  a  crime, 
that  required  an  overwhelming  amount  of  turpitude  to  com- 
mit. 

But  aside  from  the  wholesale  enormity  of  the  alleged  crime, 
and  the  extreme  difficulty  of  committing  it  with  any  success, 
(dispersed  as  copies  of  the  Scriptures  were  over  the  world,)  and 
based  as  such  a  charge  was  upon  the  supposition  of  an  entire 
apostacy  in  faith,  honor,  and  integrity  on  the  part  of  the  Church, 
the  learned  Divine  made  certain  remarks  afterwards,  that  left, 
in  my  mind,  no  doubt  of  his  mistake.  After  making  the  above 
charge,  he  asserted  that  Catholics  refused  to  disseminate  their 
own  version,  and  then  goes  on  to  ask  :  "  If  they  are  willing  that 
their  own  copy  of  the  Scriptures  should  be  fully  circulated 
among  their  own  population,  will  they  tell  us  so  ?  We  ask  them 
if  they  will  throw  no  obstacle  in  the  way  of  disseminating  their 
own  version,  without  note  or  comment  ?  "  (Dis.  76.) 

I  must  confess,  I  could  not  well  put  these  different  positions 
together.  I  could  not  well  understand  why  the  learned  Divine 
should  wish  to  circulate,  even  among  Catholics,  a  spurious  ver- 
sion of  the  Scriptures,  "  altered  and  amended,  and  so  mistrans- 
lated," he  alleged,  "  as  to  render  it  conformable  to  their  own 
standards."  He  had  before  spoken  of  the  Roman  Church  in 
such  strong  terms  of  condemnation,  calling  her  doctrines  of 
"  Transubstantiation,  the  Mass,  Penance,  Extreme  Unction, 
Matrimony,  Invocation  of  Saints,  use  of  images,"  &c.,  "  dis- 
gusting "  and  without  "  foundation  in  Scripture ; "  and  then 
having  charged  that  Church  with  "  altering  and  amending  and 
so  mistranslating  the  Bible  as  to  render  it  conformable  to  their 
own  standards  /  "  and  yet  after  all  this,  to  desire  the  privilege 


MISCELLANEOUS   OBJECTIONS.  339 

of  circulating  this  "  altered  and  amended  and  so  mistranslated" 
version,  among  deluded  Catholics,  still  more  establishing  them 
in  their  belief  of  those  disgusting  and  unfounded  tenets  o«f  their 
Church,  is  what  I  could  not  so  well  comprehend.  There  seemed 
to  be  a  mighty  screw  loose  somewhere,  in  the  several  discord- 
ant and  contradictory  charges  of  the  learned  Divine.  (Disser- 
tation 52.) 

But  in  the  course  of  my  investigations  I  found,  that  before 
the  art  of  printing  was  discovered,  all  copies  of  every  book  had 
to  be  the  labor  of  the  pen ;  and  that  in  transcribing,  it  was  al- 
leged, some  errors  had  been  committed  in  some  of  the  copies, 
by  the  transcribers.  These  errors  Catholics  insisted  were  not 
generally  of  importance,  and  the  means  of  their  correction  ex- 
isted in  other  manuscripts  found  in  possession  of  the  Church 
herself.  As  the  labor  of  copying  the  Bible  was  so  great,  as  to 
take  an  expert  penman  about  one  whole  year's  time,  occasional 
errors  could  not  be  avoided.  But  to  charge  the  Church  with  a 
deliberate  and  abandoned  design  of  changing  the  sacred  volume 
for  the  purpose,  and  with  the  intent  of  sustaining  her  own  doc- 
trines, was  certainly  a  very  harsh  accusation,  and  one  that 
ought  to  be  sustained  by  the  most  ample  proof,  before  it  should 
be  believed  ;  and  if  not  so  proven  must  react  upon  those  who 
recklessly  make  it. 

§  V.  The  Church  incapable  of  Reformation. 

I  found  it  also  objected  to  the  Catholic  Church,  that  she 
was  incapable  of  reformation.  In  the  language  of  Mr.  Breck- 
en  ridge : 

"  The  very  assumption  of  Infallibility,  while  persisted  in, 
renders  all  essential  reform  inconsistent  and  absurd ;  unneces- 
sary and  impossible.  Hence  the  corruptions  of  the  church  of 
Rome  in  doctrine,  morals,  and  essential  worship,  have  been  per- 
petuated from  age  to  age."  (Con.  H.  &  B.,  224.) 

This  objection  is  also  made  by  Mr.  Campbell,  and  by  most 
Protestant  writers.  It  seems  to  be  considered  by  them  gener- 
ally, as  a  very  strong  argument. 

It  is  very  natural  that  Protestants  and  Catholics  should  dif- 
fer about  the  character  of  the  true  Church.  Their  fundamental 
rules  lead  to  very  different  results.  While  the  Catholic  rule 


34:0  MISCELLANEOUS    OBJECTIONS. 

makes  the  Church  always  the  same,  "  UNEEFOEMED  AND  CNEE« 
FOEMABLE,  BOTH  NOW  AND  FOEEVEE,"  (as  Mr.  Breckenridge  de- 
clares,) the  Protestant  rule,  on  the  contrary,  makes  her  the 
precise  opposite,  EEFOEMED  AND  EEFOEMABLE,  "  BOTH  NOW  AND 
FOEEVEE."  One  begins  and  ends  with  fixedness  and  certainty — 
the  other  begins  and  ends  with  inquiry  and  doubt. 

I  must  confess  that  I  love  permanency  and  stability  in  all 
institutions.  I  never  found  truth  to  waver.  I  found  change 
marked  upon  the  face  of  error,  but  I  never  found  it  labelled 
upon  the  brow  of  truth.  Before  I  became  a  Catholic,  and  be- 
fore I  had  made  any  investigation  into  the  truth  of  that  system, 
I  remember  to  have  been  told,  in  substance,  by  an  eminent 
Protestant,  that  he  thought  the  stability  of  the  Roman  Church, 
was  her  most  admirable  feature.  It  struck  me,  at  the  time,  as 
one  of  the  most  sensible  positions  I  had  heard.  It  was  evidently 
based  upon  sound  sense,  and  pure  philosophy. 

And  in  my  after  investigations,  among  the  truths  I  thought 
I  could  find  in  the  New  Testament  was  the  explicit  fact,  that 
the  true  Church  was  not  to  change.  I  could  not  conceive 
of  a  changeable  church,  and  have  any  confidence  in  the  prom- 
ises of  Christ.  And  besides,  it  did  seem  to  me  as  just  to  man- 
kind, that  the  same  true  Church,  "  unreformed  and  unreforma- 
ble,  both  now  and  forever,"  should  exist  in  every  age,  that  all 
might  enjoy  the  same  opportunities  for  heaven.  I  could  not  see 
any  object  in  the  organization  of  a  reformable  Church.  It 
could  guide  no  one. 

"  It  leads  to  bewilder,  and  dazzles  to  blind." 

We  often  hear  men  speak  of  making  a  virtue  of  necessity. 
And  it  did  seem  to  me  that  this  objection  against  the  stability 
of  the  Catholic  Church,  and,  by  consequence,  holding  reforma- 
ability  in  the  true  Church,  as  a  virtue,  was  based  upon  that 
ground.  The  Protestant  principle  had  led  to  so  many  alleged 
reforms,  and  there  were  still  so  many  in  prospect ;  and  as  often 
as  one  alleged  reformation  was  made,  another  was  needed,  that 
this  inevitable  necessity,  under  the  rule,  was  at  last  esteemed  as 
a  virtue  in  the  theory  of  a  Christian  Church — a  Church  alleged 
to  have  been  organized  by  Christ.  It  seemed  to  me  there 


MISCELLANEOUS   OBJECTIONS.  34:1 

ought  to  be,  at  least,  one  immutable  institution  in  the  world — 
some  stable  system  by  which  men  could  be  guided, 

"  Henceforward  and  forever.** 

While  all  human  systems,  from  the  limited  capacity  of  their 
founders,  and  the  changing  circumstances  of  the  world,  would 
necessarily  be  defective,  and,  therefore,  perishable,  it  would 
seem  that  a  system  founded  by  Christ  should  be  stable  for  the 
very  opposite  reason. 

But  while  I  could  well  understand  the  entire  truth  of  the 
position,  that  all  reforms,  under  the  Catholic  theory,  become 
impossible  in  reference  to  faith  and  morals,  there  was  a  difficulty 
arose  in  my  mind,  as  to  iiow  these  alleged  errors  and  corruptions, 
in  faith  and  morals,  got  into  the  Church  originally.  If  they 
did  get  into  the  Church  in  violation  of  her  established  rule, 
they  could  certainly  get  out  again  in  the  same  way.  The  fact 
that  these  alleged  errors  "  have  been  perpetuated  from  age  to 
age,"  of  itself  speaks  volumes  in  her  favor.  It  proves  the  in- 
flexibility and  integrity  of  the  Church.  It  shows  her  vigilance 
— her  perseverance — and  her  invincible  firmness.  And  the  very 
principle  that  makes  her  perpetuate  these  alleged  errors,  would 
have  made  her  reject  them  at  the  beginning. 

Whatever  system  Christ  did  establish,  He  intended  it  to  last 
through  all  coming  time.  It  was  not  designed  to  meet  the 
whims  of  men — the  prevailing  temper  of  the  times — or  to  ex- 
cuse the  errors  of  heretics.  Christ  being  Infinite,  the  map  of 
the  future  lay  before  Him,  as  evident  as  that  of  the  past ;  and 
He  adopted  a  system  applicable  to  all  times,  all  places,  and  all 
persons,  and  yet  inflexible  and  unchangeable.  His  system, 
when  extended  through  all  future  ages,  and  legitimately  carried 
out,  would  save  more  men  in  the  end,  than  an  uncertain,  flexi- 
ble, and  changeable  theory,  which,  upon  its  very  face,  was  sus- 
picious, from  the  fact,  that  it  claimed  nothing,  and  asked  for  no 
respect.  If  Christ  organized  any  Church,  no  man  has  any  right 
to  set  up  another.  And  if  he  does  so,  his  act  is  void. 

When  we  reflect  upon  the  fact,  expressly  declared  by  our 
Lord,  and  shown  in  all  the  Epistles,  and  admitted  by  Protes- 
tants, and  proved  by  common  sense,  that  the  SUCCESS  of  His 
system  depended  upon  the  UNITY  of  His  FOLLOWERS,  and 


342  MISCELLANEOUS    OBJECTIONS. 

that  all  Christians  did  join  this  one  Church  in  the  days  of  the 
apostles,  we  can  then  see  the  great  END  Christ  had  in  view  in 
organizing  ONE  VISIBLE  CHURCH.  If  the  success  of  His 
system  had  not  required  the  united  faith  and  efforts  of  His  fol- 
lowers, there  would  have  been  no  reason  for  the  existence  oi 
this  one  kingdom.  The  Christian  army  is  like  any  other  army. 
Its  success  upon  the  field  of  battle  depends  upon  its  unity.  It 
must  act  like  one  man,  ready,  able,  and  willing  to  face  a  foe  from 
any  quarter,  at  any  moment. 

Take,  then,  the  two  theories,  and  extend  them  through  all 
time,  and  by  the  legitimate  and  practical  operation  of  which, 
will  you  save  most  men  in  the  end  ?  If  one  loses  more  than  the 
other  in  the  aggregate,  it  does  not  matter  to  the  Lawgiver, 
when  or  where,  here  or  there.  It  is  the  theory  of  error  still. 
And  because  Christ  knew  that  the  success  of  His  system  depend- 
ed upon  the  unity  of  His  followers,  He  organized  His  Church, 
and  gave  it  those  magnificent  promises  of  protection  ;  and  im- 
posed upon  men  the  corresponding  duty  to  hear  this  Church, 
and  of  becoming  members  of  this  one  fold.  And  having  this 
glorious  end  in  view,  was  it  not  just  as  reasonable  that  He 
should  require  all  men  to  hear  this  Church,  and  believe  in  this 
Church,  as  to  believe  any  other  truth  He  proposed  ?  And  is  it 
not  as  easy,  if  men  are  properly  disposed,  to  join  the  true,  as  a 
false  Church  ?  And  is  it  not  one  of  the  greatest  obligations 
imposed  upon  men  by  Christ,  that  they  should  regard  the  suc- 
cess of  His  kingdom,  as  they  regard  the  King  Himself?  Christ 
has  promised  us  great  rewards  for  our  limited  services.  But 
limited  as  they  are,  they  must  be  performed.  We  must  labor 
for  Him,  and  in  the  way  He  has  appointed.  The  salvation  of 
others  must  be  as  dear  to  us  as  it  is  dear  to  Him. 

"  He  sees  with  equal  eye  as  God  of  all." 

And  so  far  as  in  us  lies,  we  should  imitate  Him  in  His  expanded 
views.  We  should  take  in  all  times,  all  races,  and  all  countries. 
Local  and  temporary  views  are  not  found  in  world-wide  Chris- 
tianity. The  poorest  Indian  wanderer,  houseless  and  homeless, 
ignorant  and  rude,  has  a  soul  immortal,  and  as  bright  and  beau- 
tiful, in  the  impartial  eye  of  heaven,  as  the  crowned  and  jew- 
elled monarch  on  his  throne. 


MISCELLANEOUS    OBJECTIONS.  343 

And  I  must  say  that  I  love  a  Church  that  claims  to  be  the 
sole  true  Church.  She  acts  like  the  true  Church.  It  is  the  kind 
of  Church  we  read  of.  She,  at  least,  makes  a  consistent,  ration- 
al, and  Scriptural  case,  in  her  declaration.  Upon  the  face  of 
the  papers,  she  makes  out  a  good  showing;  not  a  wild  and  inco- 
herent, mixed  and  multifarious  claim,  that  contains  so  many  in- 
consistencies, that  new  ones  start  up  in  every  line.  But  when  a 
Church  comes  to  me  and  says :  u  I  glory  in  having  reformed 
my  creed,  and  in  being  always  reformable  ; "  I  cannot  but  say : 
"  You  will,  perhaps,  always  need  it.  Constitutional  infirmities 
are  never  cured.  They  '  lead  but  to  the  grave.'  I  can  well  un- 
derstand how  the  members  of  the  true  Church  could  reform 
themselves  in  their  own  conduct.  But  how  the  work  of  our 
Lord — t/ie  Church  herself— could  be  reformed,  I  cannot  con- 
ceive. And  I  must  ask,  Who  are  you  ?  When  did  you  take 
your  rise  ?  When  and  where  did  you  find  the  theory  of  a  re- 
formable true  Church  f  You  claim  no  infallibility,  for,  mani- 
festly, you  have  none.  You  claim  no  certain  competency  to 
guide  any  one  to  glory,  for  your  skill  consists  in  making  alleged 
reformations  in  the  work  of  Christ.  You  can  claim  no  rest,  for 
a  reformable  Church  is  never  at  rest,  but  always  inquiring  after 
new  reformations.  You  claim  no  respect,  either  because  you 
are  entitled  to  none,  or  because  you  are  too  modest  to  claim  that 
which  is  your  right.  This  excessive  modesty  may  be  tolerable 
in  individuals,  but  certainly  is  intolerable  in  the  true  Church. 

"  And  will  you  not  always  need  reforming,  until  you  cease  to 
be  reformable  ?  And  can  that  ever  be,  under  your  theory  ? 
And  if  so,  when  will  that  period  arrive  ?  Can  I  possibly  li ve 
that  long  ?  And  if  I  could,  what  am  I  to  do  in  the  mean  time  ? 
Must  I  be  still  inquiring  ?  Must  I  be  still  left  in  painful  uncer- 
tainty, 

'  And  hungry  hopes  regale  the  while. 
On  the  spare  diet  of  a  smile '  ? 

"  I  know  you  are  liberal.  You  admit  salvation  can  be  found 
in  a  great  variety  of  Churches.  But  is  it,  in  fact  and  truth,  sal- 
vation ?  Is  it  that  priceless  jewel  ?  Are  you  sure  of  it  ?  From 
the  very  fact  that  you  are  so  willing  to  compromise,  and  admit 
that  salvation  can  be  found  even  in  the  alleged  Church  of  Anti* 


MISCELLANEOUS    OBJECTIONS. 

christ,  I  fear  your  principles  are  too  liberal  to  be  true.  I  believe 
in  truth.  I  am  content  to  find  it.  I  think  it  the  best  mercy — 
the  best  humanity — the  best  sense — the  best  logic — and  it  is 
certainly  the  safest.  I  have  known  many  men  set  up  false 
claims  to  property,  and  I  never  knew  one  yet,  who  was  conscious 
of  the  fact,  but  was  willing  to  compromise.  He  could  lose  noth- 
ing, and  was  certain  to  gain  something.  The  terms  were  not 
very  material.  He  was  always  liberal.  Like  the  woman  that 
falsely  claimed  the  child  before  King  Solomon,  he  was  always 
ready,  able,  and  willing  to  '  divide  it.'  But  not  so  with  the 
true  owner — the  man  conscious  of  his  rights.  It  was  matter  of 
principle  with  him.  He  always  said  '  all  or  none ' — '  My  God 
and  my  right.'  It  seems  it  ought  to  be  so  with  the  true  Church. 
She  ought  to  listen  to  no  one  but  her  Master.  Let  her  be  as 
inflexible,  stubborn,  and  intolerant  as  fact  and  truth  always  are. 
Is  she  not  the  more  beautiful  ? — the  more  lovely  ? — the  more 
merciful  ?  Is  there  any  mercy  but  in  the  truth  ?  any  charity 
but  in  the  fact  ?  You  may  possibly  be  in  the  right,  but  my 
mind  is  so  constituted  as  not  to  perceive  it.  Your  theory  is  cer- 
tainly very  flattering.  It  raises  my  individual  mind  above  your- 
self. But  I  am  after  salvation — not  flattery.  If  I  were  not  to 
be  judged  hereafter  by  a  severe  Judge,  who  knows  His  own 
rights — has  the  ability  to  protect  them — and  does  not  deal  in 

flattery,  that 

'  Medium  of  a  knavish  trade,' 

then  I  would  like  your  theory  well.  But  I  have  my  fears  that 
it  will  not  do.  I  can  have  no  confidence  in  a  Church  that  has 
none  in  herself — that  cannot  assure  me  of  any  thing,  because, 
confessedly,  she  does  not  know.  It  does  not  seem  to  have  been 
so  with  the  old  Church.  She  possessed  not  that  infirmity,  but 
lifted  her  mighty  head  above  the  shifting  storms  below.  Like 
a  cloud-capped  mountain  peak,  she  aspired  to  the  skies.  Her 
claims  were  as  manifest  as  the  snow-clad  sierras.  And  like  the 
eternal  hills,  she  stood  firm  and  high.  And  while  she  held  up 
truth  to  the  world,  she  never  stooped  to  flatter.  I  would  like 
to  find  that  Church  that  has  actually  '  seen  the  LordJ  and  for 
that  reason  has  not  been  reformed,  and  cannot  be  reformed  / 
BECAUSE  SHE  WAS  SO  CONSTITUTED  IN  THE  BE- 
GINNING AS  NEVER  TO  NEED  IT." 


MISCELLANEOUS   OBJECTIONS.  345 

And  if  we  were  to  admit  that  salvation  may  be  found  m 
many  different  Churches,  under  the  reformable-true-Church  the- 
ory, where  shall  we  fix  the  limits?  Faith  must  have  some  deter- 
minate limits.  If  you  adopt  the  theory  of  more  than  one  Church, 
where  will  you  stop  ?  And  wherever  you  do  stop,  are  your 
limits  more  intelligible — more  plain — more  just — more  certain 
than  the  limits  of  the  one-unreformable-Church  theory  ?  Are 
they  more  charitable  or  more  consistent  ?  You  must  lay  down 
some  sensible  rule,  some  fixed  limits,  or  your  theory  will  not 
have  even  the  shadow  of  system  in  it.  It  will  depend  upon  the 
sliding  scale  of  the  times.  And  would  that  be  Christianity  ? 
Would  such  a  theory  save  souls  ? 

This  difficulty  has  been  great  with  Protestants.  Whatever 
limits  they  adopted  in  one  age,  needed  extension  in  the  next.  In 
the  days  of  Luther,  he  and  the  Lutherans  held  the  Sacramenta- 
rians  as  heretics.  The  Calvinists,  at  the  Synod  of  Dort,  as  also 
those  of  France,  held  the  Remonstrants  as  heretics.  But  in  pro- 
cess of  time  these  limits  were  extended.  The  Socinians,  so  much 
abhorred  at  the  beginning,  have  grown  into  favor.  The  Armin- 
ians  have  also  ceased,  with  the  Calvinists,  to  be  considered  out- 
side the  pale  of  salvation.  The  tendency  is  now  to  take  in  every 
sect  of  every  kind.  The  limits  will  then  extend,  as  they  have 
extended,  with  the  increase  of  sects.  Matters  of  faith  become 
of  no  importance.  Indifference  inevitably  succeeds.  The  cer- 
tain result  of  such  a  theory  is,  that  men  cease  to  regard  religion 
as  of  supreme  importance,  until  at  last  they  have  no  faith 

"  For  which  they  bear  to  live  or  dare  to  die." 

§  8.    Wicked  persons  are  sometimes  found  in  the   Catholic 

Church. 

One  of  the  charges  made  by  Mr.  Campbell  against  the  Cath- 
olic Church  was,  that  wicked  persons  were  sometimes  members 
of  her  communion.  He  quotes  from  Bellarmine  this  sentence  : 

"  Wicked  men,  infidels,  and  reprobates,  remaining  in  the 
public  profession  of  the  Roman  Church,  are  true  members  of 
the  body  of  Christ." 

He  then  quotes  from  the  notes  of  the  Rheimish  Testament : 

"  Every  branch  in  me.  <fcc.  Christ  hath  some  branches  in 
31 


34:6  MISCELLANEOUS    OBJECTIONS. 

his  body  mystical  that  be  fruitless  ;  therefore,  ill  livers  also  may 
be  members  of  Christ's  church." 

This  charge  does  not  allege  that  the  Church  neglects  to 
teach  the  faith,  and  to  urge  it  continually  upon  all  her  members, 
but  that  she  is  too  lax  in  her  discipline,-  and  does  not  excommu- 
nicate persons  as  readily  as  Protestants  do,  for  alleged  errors  in 
practice. 

It  must  be  manifest  that  no  Church  can  certainly  know  who 
are  at  heart  good,  and  who  are  evil.  No  being  but  God, 
"  whose  eye  is  on  the  heart,"  can  determine  this  question.  In  a 
visible  Church,  there  must  and  will  be  members  who  are  un- 
worthy, and  the  Church  cannot  be  held  responsible  for  their  in- 
dividual vices.  If  we  make  the  true  visible  Church  responsible 
for  the  acts  of  wicked  members,  we  place  her  safety  and  exist- 
ence entirely  at  the  mercy  of  her  enemies,  who  have  only  to 
join,  and  then  ruin  her.  And  every  member  of  the  Church, 
from  the  most  elevated  and  upright  down  to  the  most  un- 
worthy, are  sinners,  to  a  greater  or  less  extent.  We  are  all 
sinners. 

"  If  we  say  we  have  no  sin,  we  deceive  ourselves,  and  the 
truth  is  not  in  us.  If  we  say  we  have  not  sinned,  we  make  him 
a  liar,  and  his  word  is  not  in  us.  If  we  confess  our  sins,  he  is 
faithful  and  just  to  forgive  us  our  sins,  and  to  cleanse  us  from 
all  unrighteousness."  (1  John  i.  8-10.)  And  St.  Paul  says  of 
himself: 

"But  I  keep  under  my  body,  and  bring  it  into  subjection, 
lest  that  by  any  means,  when  I  have  preached  unto  others,  I 
myself  should  be  a  castaway."  (1  Cor.  ix.  27.) 

As  all  members  are  sinners,  and  only  differ  in  degree,  the 
question  only  regards  the  degree  of  misconduct  that  shall  cut  a 
man  off  from  the  Church,  and  what  time  shall  be  allowed  him 
for  repentance. 

When  Peter  asked  his  Master  how  often  he  should  forgive 
his  brother,  "  Jesus  said  unto  him,  I  say  not  unto  thee  until 
seven  times:  but  until  seventy  times  seven."  (Matt,  xviii.  21, 
22.)  And  again  our  blessed  Lord  declares:  "Take  heed  to 
yourselves.  If  thy  brother  trespass  against  thee,  rebuke  him  : 
and  if  he  repent,  forgive  him.  And  if  he  trespass  against  thee 
seven  times  in  a  day,  and  seven  times  in  a  day  turn  again  to 


MISCELLANEOUS   OBJECTIONS.  347 

thee  saying,  I  repent,  thou  shalt  forgive  him."  (Luke  xvii 
3,4.) 

This  merciful  rule  was  laid  down  by  our  Lord,  who  knew 
full  well  the  infirmity  of  human  nature,  and  the  frailty  of  man. 
And  we  find  in  His  own  blessed  apostles,  the  full  proof  of  how 
great  this  infirmity  is.  We  hear  the  fervent  and  devoted  Paul 
say  of  himself,  "  I  am  carnal,  sold  under  sin.  *  *  *  For  the 
good  that  I  would,  I  do  not ;  but  the  evil  which  I  would  not, 
that  I  do." 

If  then  my  brother  trespass  against  me  seven  times  in  a  day, 
and  seven  times  in  a  day  return  and  say,  I  repent,  I  must  for- 
give him.  And  I  must  do  this  upon  his  saying  I  repent. 

I  cannot  judge  his  heart — I  can  know  what  he  says.  What 
then  can  the  true  Church  do,  but  follow  the  merciful  commands 
of  her  Master  ?  She  cannot  make  a  new  law.  She  must  for- 
give as  she  has  been  commanded.  If  then  a  member  returns 
and  says  "  I  repent,"  the  Church  can  only  forgive  him. 

And  when  I  came  to  examine  into  this  subject,  I  found  that 
by  the  discipline  of  the  Church,  every  member  was  required  to 
confess  his  sins,  and  receive  the  Sacrament  of  the  Eucharist  at 
least  once  a  year,  upon  pain  of  excommunication.  If  he  neglect 
this  duty,  when  in  his  power,  he  stands  liable  to  be  excommuni- 
cated. If  then  he  complies  with  this  duty,  how  can  the  Church 
refuse  him  her  fellowship  ?  She  allows  him  a  certain  period  for 
repentance  and  confession.  If  he  obey,  she  must  forgive.  If 
he  disobey,  he  is  not  permitted  to  receive  the  sacraments.  He  is 
not,  however,  excluded  from  the  privilege  of  repentance.  Nor 
is  he  excluded,  if  he  pleases,  from  assisting  in  the  celebration  of 
her  festivals,  nor  from  attending  her  worship.  All  persons  have 
this  privilege.  She  knows  that  many  a  wanderer  has  been  called 
home  by  kindness.  And  while  she  urges  all  to  the  strictest 
obedience,  and  reproves  all  for  their  sins  without  distinction  of 
condition,  and  holds  up  before,  their  eyes  the  fatal  consequences 
of  every  sin,  she  at  the  same  time  remembers,  that  she  is  bound 
by  the  command  of  her  Master  to  forgive  seventy  times  seven, 
if  her  children  return  and  repent.  How  many  by  this  merciful 
rule  of  our  Lord,  have  been  finally  saved  ! 

But  there  is  a  marked  distinction  between  the  body  and  soul 
of  the  Church.  All  who  profess  the  true  faith,  assist  at  the  same 


348  MISCELLANEOUS    OBJECTIONS. 

religious  services,  and  comply  with  the  rules  of  the  Church,  be- 
long to  the  body  of  the  Church,  and  are  numbered  among  her 
children.  But  to  faith  and  exterior  communion,  must  be  added 
hope  and  charity  and  the  grace  of  God,  that  we  may  belong  to  the 
soul  of  the  Church.  These  two  classes  God  alone  can  separate. 
The  Church  can  determine  as  to  what  is  faith,  what  is  heresy ; 
and  while  it  is  her  duty  to  teach  all  the  truth,  she  cannot  judge 
the  inward  man.  As  Bishop  Purcell  beautifully  expresses  it : 
"  When  Christ  empowered  the  church  to  throw  her  nets  into 
the  sea  of  human  life,  as  the  apostles  did  into  the  lake,  she  gath- 
ered into  it  fishes,  both  good  and  bad ;  when  the  nets  are  hauled 
ashore,  the  good  fish  will  be  selected  and  the  bad  thrown  back 
into  the  sea.  So  will  it  be  at  the  end  of  the  world.  The  angels 
of  God  will  come  forth  and  select  the  elect  from  the  reprobate 
— they  will  gather  the  wheat  into  the  garner,  but  the  tares  they 
will  burn  with  unquenchable  fire."  *  *  *  "  Hence,  as  long  as 
one  of  her  members  disqualifies  not  himself  for  the  communion 
of  the  faithful  by  flagrant  impiety,  notorious  depravity,  or  scan- 
dalous excess,  she  rejects  him  not ;  but  like  that  charity  of 
which  St.  Paul  speaks,  '  is  patient,  is  kind,  thinketh  no  evil,  re- 
joiceth  not  in  iniquity,  but  rejoiceth  with  the  truth,  believeth 
all  things,  hopeth  all  things,  endureth  all  things,  with  modesty 
admonishing  men,  if  peradventure  God  may  give  them  repent- 
ance.' "  (Bishop  Purcell.  Debate  C.  &  P.,  71.) 

There  is  such  a  thing  as  being  too  strict.  We  see  it  exhib- 
ited in  the  conduct  of  the  Pharisees.  Christ  was  blamed  be- 
cause he  eat  with  publicans  and  sinners,  and  because  he  was 
their  friend.  His  disciples  were  blamed  for  eating  as  they  went 
through  the  fields  on  the  Sabbath  day.  And  in  the  history  of 
the  Church  subsequent  to  the  days  of  the  apostles,  we  find  the 
same  excessive  strictness  generally  among  heretics.  The  No- 
vatians  were  condemned  for  their  excessive  severity.  They 
would  admit  of  no  repentance— of  no  return  to  the  church. 
The  Manicheans  also  claimed  the  most  extraordinary  piety, 
while  teaching  the  most  ruinous  doctrines.  The  Vaudois  also 
required  their  members  to  be  poor  and  illiterate,  making  pov- 
erty a  requisite  instead  of  a  perfection,  as  Christ  had  done. 
And  if  we  look  into  the  history  of  the  difierent  sects  of  con- 
denmed  heretics,  we  shall  find  the  greater  portion  of  them 


MISCELLANEOUS   OBJECTIONS.  349 

always  claiming  the  most  rigid  virtue,  and  placing  the  essentials 
of  religion  in  the  counsels  of  perfection. 

It  is  very  natural  that  Protestants  should  regard  excommu- 
nication among  them,  if  it  can  be  so  called,  with  much  less  cau 
tion  than  it  is  regarded  by  Catholics.  This  grows  out  of  their 
theory.  It  springs  necessarily  from  their  rule.  With  them  it 
is  not  an  expulsion,  but  a  mere  separation.  It  affects  not  the 
party.  It  decides  nothing.  It  does  not  show  that  he  is  a  here- 
tic. It  is  not  the  slightest  evidence  that  he  is  so.  It  simply 
shows  the  mere  opinion  of  those  who  differ  with  him.  In  the 
contemplation  of  the  theory  itself,  their  opinion  is  no  better 
than  his.  They  are  each  independent  equals.  They  then  can 
declare  a  separation  without  much  danger  of  doing  any  injury 
to  the  party,  even  if  they  are  wrong.  He  can  easily  join  some 
other  church,  in  which  his  chances  for  heaven  will  be,  perhaps, 
greater  than  they  were  in  the  Church  he  left. 

But  it  is  not  so  in  the  Catholic  Church.  In  her  theory  ex- 
communication still  means  something.  It  still  has  the  effect  it 
did  of  old.  For  this  reason  the  Council  of  Trent  at  its  twenty- 
fifth  session,  chapter  third,  required  that  excommunication 
should  be  "  used  with  sobriety  and  great  circumspection." 

§  9.   That  successors  of  the  Apostles  must  be  successors  in  full. 

In  his  debate  with  Bishop  Purcell,  Mr.  Campbell  insisted 
that  the  apostles,  if  they  had  .successors  at  all,  must  have  suc- 
cessors in  full.  He  refers  to  the  office  of  President,  and  says 
truly,  that  each  succeeding  President  has  the  same  powers  as 
the  first.  This  same  objection  is  generally  made  by  Protestant 
controvertists.  The  essence  of  the  objection  is,  that  the  infalli- 
ble assistance  of  the  Holy  Ghost  was  given  to  each  apostle  in- 
dividually, while  it  is  conceded  that  each  Catholic  Bishop  is  not 
personally  infallible ;  but  this  infallible  assistance  is  claimed  to 
have  been  given  to  the  college  of  teachers,  as  the  organs  of  the 
entire  corporation,  the  Church.  This  college,  in  its  collective 
capacity,  claims  the  same  powers  and  qualifications  to  teach,  as 
did  the  apostles.  It  will  be  observed,  that  the  question  does 
not  regard  the  quantum  of  power,  nor  the  extent  of  the  divine 
assistance,  but  solely  the  mode  in  which  this  assistance  is  given. 
The  power  and  ability  to  do  the  same  things,  that  is,  to  teach 


350  MISCELLANEOUS    OBJECTIONS. 

the  same  truths,  are  now  claimed  by  the  organs  of  the  Church, 
as  were  claimed  and  exercised  by  the  apostles  themselves. 

The  apostles,  being  the  first  teachers,  had  necessarily,  in  the 
beginning,  to  travel  into  different  countries,  and  remain  for 
several  years  separated  from  each  other ;  and  this  personal  in- 
fallibility was  required  by  the  extraordinary  circumstances  in 
which  they  were  placed.  But  it  is  still  clear,  from  the  history 
of  the  Council  of  Jerusalem,  that  the  same  infallible  assistance 
was  also  granted  to  the  college  of  teachers,  including  others  be- 
sides the  apostles.  This  infallible  assistance  came  down  in  this 
latter  form,  to  the  successors  of  the  apostles. 

Besides  this,  the  apostles  were  chosen  witnesses,  as  well  as 
teachers.  The  powers  they  exercised  being  but  delegated,  they 
could  act  in  two  or  more  different  capacities.  The  apostles 
were  to  bear  witness  of  Christ ;  and  one  of  the  offices  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  was  to  bring  to  their  recollection  all  things  that 
Christ  had  said  to  them.  (John  xiv.  26.)  Witnesses  can  only 
act  individually.  Each  can  only  state  what  he  finds  written 
upon  his  own  memory.  He  is  only  called  upon  to  state  what 
he  knows  himself.  Recollection  is  an  individual  act ;  and  the 
promise  that  the  Holy  Ghost  should  bring  all  things  to  their 
recollection  was,  in  its  nature,  confined  to  the  apostles,  and  the 
fulfilment  of  this  promise  necessarily  made  them  individually  in- 
fallible. Under  the  commission  "  Go  teach,"  the  infallible  as- 
sistance was  promised  to  the  college  through  all  coming  time  ; 
and  under  the  special  promise  that  the  Holy  Ghost  should  bring 
all  things  to  their  recollection,  this  assistance  was  given  to  the 
apostles  individually,  because  they  had  more  capacities  to  fill 
than  their  successors  under  the  commission. 


CHAPTER   IX. 

CHARGES    OF    MISCONDUCT    AGAINST    THE    JESUITS    AND 
CERTAIN    POPES. 

§  1.   Charges  against  the  Jesuits. 

AMONG  other  charges  made  against  Catholics,  by  Mr.  Camp- 
bell, I  found  certain  allegations  against  the  Jesuits.  Although 
the  cause  of  the  Catholic  church  is  not  identical  with  this  order 
— though  she  can  stand  alone  without  it — and  though  at  one 
time  it  had  many  enemies  among  Catholics,  yet,  as  it  is  an  in- 
fluential order  in  the  church,  I  examined  these  charges,  to  the 
best  of  my  opportunity.  The  charges  of  Mr.  C.  were  based 
mainly  upon  "  The  Secreta  Monita  of  the  Order  of  Jesuits." 
He  states  he  was  informed  by  the  lady  from  whom  he  obtained 
it,  that  it  had  been  brought  to  the  United  States  by  the  Secre- 
tary of  Lafayette.  This  Secretary  was  an  Infidel  and  a  Jacobin, 
as  Bishop  Purcell  stated. 

"The  Secreta  Monita,  then,"  says  Mr.  C.,  "is  just  as  accu- 
rate and  fair  a  view  of  the  spirit,  design,  and  policies  of  that 
order,  as  can  be  given.  Such  is  our  faith ;  and  on  no  mean  tes- 
timony either. 

"  We  shall  give  some  account  of  the  discovery  of  this  said 
book: 

" '  We  are  indebted  for  this  terrible  book  of  Jesuits'  secrets, 
to  the  Parliament  of  Paris.  They  passed  the  act  to  abolish  the 
Jesuits'  society ;  and  the  execution  came  on  the  Jesuit  college 
like  a  thunder  stroke.  Their  palace  was  surrounded  by  troops, 
and  their  papers  and  books,  and  these  "  Secret  Instructions " 


352  CHARGES    AGAINST   THE   JESLlits. 

were  seized  before  they  had  heard  that  the  parliament  had 
taken  up  their  cause ! ' 

"  The  reasons  which  the  parliament  of  France,  in  1762,  gave 
for  extirpating  this  order,  which  has  been  thirty-nine  times  pro- 
scribed, speak  volumes : 

"  '  The  consequences  of  their  doctrine  destroy  the  law  of  na- 
ture :  break  all  the  bonds  of  civil  society :  authorizing  lying, 
theft,  perjury,  the  utmost  uncleanness,  murder,  and  all  sins ! 
Their  doctrines  root  out  all  sentiments  of  humanity :  excite  re- 
bellion:  root  out  all  religion  :  and  substitute  all  sorts  of  super- 
stition, blasphemy,  irreligion,  idolatry.' 

"Other  reasons  for  the  suppression  of  this  order  will  be 
found  in  the  following  extract  from  their  oath : 

"  '  In  the  presence  of  Almighty  God  and  of  all  the  saints,  to 
you,  my  ghostly  father,  I  do  declare  that  his  holiness,  the  Pope, 
is  Christ's  vicar-general,  and  the  only  head  of  the  universal 
church  throughout  the  earth ;  and  that  by  virtue  of  the  keys 
given  him  by  my  Saviour,  Jesus  Christ,  he  hath  power  to  de- 
pose heretical  kings,  princes,  states,  commonwealths,  and  gov- 
ernments, all  being  illegal  without  his  sacred  confirmation; 
and  that  they  may  safely  be  destroyed.  Therefore  I,  to  the  ut- 
most of  my  power,  shall  and  will  defend  his  doctrine,  and  his 
holiness'  rights  and  customs  against  all  usurpers,  &c. 

"  '  I  do  renounce  and  disown  any  allegiance  as  due  to  any 
heretical  king,  prince,  state,  named  Protestants,  or  obedience  to 
any  of  their  inferior  magistrates  or  officers. 

" '  I  do  further  promise  and  declare,  that  notwithstanding  I 
am  dispensed  with,  to  assume  any  religion  heretical  for  the 
propagation  of  the  mother  church's  interest — to  keep  secret  and 
private  all  her  agents  counsel,  &c. 

" '  All  of  which  I,  A  B,  do  swear  by  the  blessed  Trinity, 
and  the  blessed  Sacrament,  which  I  am  now  to  receive.  And  I 
call  all  the  heavenly  and  glorious  hosts  above,  to  witness  these 
my  real  intentions,  to  keep  this  my  oath.  In  testimony  hereof, 
I  take  this  most  blessed  sacrament  of  the  eucharist,  and  set  my 
hand  and  seal.'  "  (Debate  C.  &  P.,  293.) 

The  Secreta  Monita  having  been  denied  by  Bishop  Purcell 
as  genuine,  and  alleged  to  be  a  forgery,  Mr.  Campbell  in  reply 
Bays : 


CHARGES    AGAINST   THE   JESUITS.  353 

"  Knowing,  my  fellow-citizens,  how  much  depends,  in  such  a 
discussion  as  that  now  in  progress,  on  having  authentic  docu 
ments,  I  determined,  from  the  beginning,  to  rely  on  none  which 
could,  on  proper  evidence,  or  with  justice,  be  repudiated.  I 
know  that  in  all  debates  so  far  back  as  the  very  era  of  the  Ref- 
ormation, this  party  have  been  accustomed  to  deny  authorities, 
to  dispute  versions,  translations,  <fcc.,  even  of  their  own  writers 
who  were  so  candid  as  to  give  a  tolerably  fair  representation  of 
themselves." 

After  some  further  remarks  of  the  same  tenor,  and  in  refer- 
ence to  the  Jesuits,  Mr.  C.  continues  : 

"  Here  is  another  document,  not  from  the  ashes  of  a  monas- 
tery. I  do  not  know  the  writer  of  this  article  :  but  it  is  from 
an  Encyclopaedia."  (Debate  C.  &  P.,  301.) 

One  would  naturally  suppose  from  this  avowal  of  Mr.  C.  that 
he  was  determined  to  quote  from  some  authority  that  could  not 
be  questioned.  But  the  Encyclopedia  of  Religious  Knowledge, 
from  which  he  quoted,  was  a  very  recent  Protestant  work,  pub- 
lished by  Fessenden  &  Co.  I  afterwards  consulted  the  work 
myself.  It  seemed  to  be  generally  fair  enough  to  the  Protestant 
sects,  usually  giving  their  tenets  in  the  words  of  some  leading 
member  of  the  particular  church ;  but  in  all  that  related  to 
Catholics,  it  was  prejudiced  and  partial,  as  could  readily  be  seen 
by  any  one  having  any  tolerable  idea  of  the  Catholic  faith.  Its 
articles  in  reference  to  that  church  bear  upon  their  face,  to  my 
mind,  the  impress  of  one  sided  and  partial  statements. 

I  take  so  much  of  the  extracted  article  as  gives  the  essence 
of  the  charges  against  the  order. 

"  The  essential  principles  of  this  institution,  namely,  that 
their  order  is  to  be  maintained  at  the  expense  of  society  at  large, 
and  that  the  end  sanctifies  the  means,  are  utterly  incompatible 
with  the  welfare  of  any  community  of  men.  Their  system  of 
lax  and  pliant  morality,  justifying  every  vice,  and  authorizing 
every  atrocity,  has  left  deep  and  lasting  ravages  on  the  face  of 
the  moral  world.  Their  zeal  to  extend  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
court  of  Rome  over  every  civil  government,  gave  currency  to 
tenets  respecting  the  duty  of  opposing  princes  who  were  hostile 
to  the  Catholic  faith,  which  shook  the  basis  of  all  political  al- 
legiance, and  loosened  the  obligations  of  every  human  law. 


354:  CHARGES    AGAINST   THE   JESUITS. 

Their  indefatigable  industry,  and  countless  artifices  in  resisting 
the  progress  of  the  Reformed  religion,  perpetuated  the  most 
pernicious  errors  of  Popery,  and  postponed  the  triumph  of  tol- 
erant and  Christian  principles. 

"  The  evils  of  Jesuitism  arise  not  from  the  violation  of  the 
principles  of  the  order ;  on  the  contrary,  they  are  the  natural 
and  necessary  fruits  of  the  system ;  they  are  confined  to  no  age, 
place,  or  person."  (Encyclopaedia  of  Religious  Knowledge,  p. 
685,  as  given  by  Mr.  C.) 

This  indictment  was  certainly  the  most  formidable  I  had  ever 
read.  All  the  forms  in  the  Criminal  Precedents  could  not  equal 
it.  It  did  not  charge  this  abandoned  order  of  men  with  certain 
specified  crimes  only,  but  with  every  crime  under  heaven.  And 
not  only  so,  but  with  every  thing  unclean,  low,  vile,  and  idola- 
trous. There  was  no  crime,  no  degrading  practice,  of  which 
they  were  not  alleged  to  be  guilty.  They  were  alleged  human 
monsters.  So  unlimited  were  their  alleged  deformities,  that 
they  had  but  one  single  virtue  left,  and  that  was  indispensably 
necessary  to  complete  their  alleged  system  of  villany.  They 
were  conceded  to  have  consciences,  upon  which  you  could  predi- 
cate the  obligation  of  an  oath.  These  charges  certainly  con- 
tained  enough  to  satisfy  any  enemy.  If  the  order  had  a  bitter 
and  slanderous  enemy  in  the  world,  he  certainly  could  find  food 
enough  in  this  indictment  upon  which  to  feast  his  enmity.  He 
could  well  say :  "  This  is  full,  final,  and  complete.  They  are 
charged  with  every  thing.  Nothing  could  be  better,  because 
nothing  can  be  added." 

And  how  shall  such  unfortunate  men  be  tried  ?  With  such 
charges  impending  over  them,  can  they  hope  for  justice  in  this 
world  ?  They  come  into  court  crushed  with  a  mass  of  such  a 
wild  multiplicity  of  charges,  that  the  court  and  jury  instinctively 
turn  from  these  miserable  beings,  either  guilty  of,  or  unfortunate 
enough  to  be  charged  with,  such  a  total  abandonment  of  all  and 
every  moral  principle.  The  very  reading  of  such  an  indictment 
is  enough  to  overwhelm  them,  and  to  half  convict  them  of  its 
most  horrible  charges.  Ought  men  so  unfortunate  as  to  be 
charged  with  such  unlimited  depravity,  even  though  innocent, 
to  get  justice  in  this  world  ?  Why  should  they  ?  Are  they  not 
like  the  alleged  leper,  though  clean,  still  dreaded  and  shunned 


CHARGES   AGAINST   THE   JESUITS.  355 

everywhere  ?  Is  it  not  better  humanity  to  sacrince  so  unfor- 
tunate an  order  of  men,  than  io  ^iice  saclt  a  calumny  ?  Is  it  not 
better  to  let  the  melancholy  victims  of  slander  go  to  their  graves 
in  shame  and  ignominy,  than  to  vindicate  human  nature  itself 
from  such  a  libel  ?  Had  we  not  better  hang  the  principle  on 
high,  that  the  bare  making  of  such  charges  is  conclusive  evi- 
dence of  their  truth,  and  thus  put  the  reputations  of  all  men  at 
the  mercy  of  their  enemies  ? 

But  are  not  these  Jesuits  men  ?  Are  they  not  our  breth- 
ren ?  Are  they  not  entitled  to  the  rights  of  human  nature  ? 
Ought  we  not  to  judge  them  as  we  would  other  men  ?  and  not 
believe  them  guilty  of  all  the  crimes  possible  against  God  and 
humanity,  without  evidence  full  and  satisfactory,  and  strong  and 
conclusive,  in  proportion  as  the  crimes  alleged  are  monstrous 
and  incredible  ?  In  other  words,  shall  we  not  judge  them  by 
the  same  rules  of  charity  by  which  we  would  be  judged  our- 
selves, and  under  which  alone  human  virtue  can  claim  a  home 
upon  this  earth  ? 

And  shall  we  permit  the  mere  fact  that  these  men  have  been 
so  frequently  accused,  by  their  enemies,  of  wrong  and  injury 
against  society  itself,  and  especially  of  those  vague  and  general 
charges,  behind  which  slander  is  wont  to  hide  itself,  to  weigh 
with  us  ?  For  is  it  not  too  true,  that  as  the  last  refuge  of  dis- 
comfited slander,  she  contents  herself  with  accusing  her  victim 
of  some  general  meanness — of  some  universal  depravity — of  a 
suspicion  of  being  suspected  ?  And  shah1  we  take  the  mere 
clamor  and  vehemence  of  their  enemies  as  evidence  in  such  a 
case?  If  we  do  so,  we  place  the  cause  of  truth  in  the  power  of 
its  enemies,  for  they  can  always  raise  a  clamor ;  and  the  less 
proof  they  have,  the  more  clamor  they  need,  and,  therefore,  the 
more  naturally  resort  to  it ;  and  if  we  reason  upon  that  basis, 
and  take  clamor  as  evidence,  we  shall  reject  Christianity  itself ; 
for  we  must  remember  that  millions  of  Jews,  by  clamor,  brought 
Christ  to  the  cross.  Were  they  right  ?  Was  He  guilty  ?  And 
when  Paul  met  his  Jewish  brethren  at  Rome,  they  had  naught 
to  say  against  the  disciples  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  but  that  the  "  sect 
was  everywhere  spoken  against."  And  we  ought  to  remember 
that  for  centuries  the  Christians  were  overwhelmed  with  a 
mighty  mass  of  accusations,  imputing  to  them  crimes  the  most 


356  CHARGES   AGAINST   THE    JESUITS. 

enormous,  improbable,  and  unreasonable  in  themselves ;  and  in 
almost  all  cases,  alleged  to  have  been  committed  in  secret.  And 
as  the  mighty  sum  total  o£  all  their  alleged  iniquities,  they  were 
charged  with  being  "  enemies  of  mankind  ;"  and  so  general  was 
the  belief  of  their  guilt,  that  when  the  tyrant  Nero  burned  the 
city  of  Rome,  his  first  thought  was  to  charge  it  upon  the  Chris- 
tians ;  a  charge  like  all  other  wholesale  charges,  requiring  noth- 
ing but  malice  to  make,  and  nothing  but  prejudice  to  believe. 
Had  we  lived  in  that  age,  and  had  taken  the  clamor  and  vehe- 
mence of  the  millions  as  evidence  of  the  truth  of  their  charges, 
we  could  not  have  been  Christians  at  all.  And  we  ought  further 
to  remember  that  Christ  expressly  foretold  that  His  sincere  fol- 
lowers should  be  "  hated  of  all  nations  for  his  name's  sake."  It 
is  one  of  the  most  beautiful  proofs  of  the  truth  of  Christianity, 
that  this  prediction,  made  so  long  ago,  has  been  so  literally  ful- 
filled in  all  after  ages.  And  were  an  intelligent  and  observant 
stranger,  just  arrived  from  a  distant  land,  called  upon,  with  rev- 
elation and  reason  as  his  sole  guides,  to  select  the  true  followers 
of  Christ,  he  would  unhesitatingly  fix  upon  that  body  of  men 
most  distinguished  for  their  energy,  zeal,  and  devotion ;  and 
who  especially  were  most  violently  abused  and  opposed  by  In- 
fidels and  discordant  sects. 

§  2.  These  charges  examined. 

This  charge  of  universal  depravity  is  expressly  made  against 
the  entire  order.  It  is  not  limited  to  individuals.  It  includes 
each  and  every  member.  They  are  all  expressly  alleged  to  take 
the  oath.  They  all  concur  in  every  thing.  They  all  have  the 
secret  instructions.  And  the  sum  total  of  this  unlimited  system 
of  vice  is  alleged  to  be  comprised  in  this  short  sentence  :  "  The 
end  sanctifies  the  means."  I  must  say,  that  ingenious  malice, 
with  the  whole  world  for  its  range,  and  all  time  for  its  duration, 
could  not  possibly  have  invented  a  charge  more  extended  in 
meaning,  and  more  concise  in  words.  This  short  sentence,  of 
only  five  omnipotent  words,  embodies  a  charge  of  every  crime 
under  heaven ;  and  is  so  short  that  it  can  be  repeated  oft  and 
oft  again  ;  and  is  yet  so  extensive  in  meaning,  that  as  often  as 
it  is  repeated,  it  leaves  the  prejudiced  and  disordered  imagina- 
tion, in  selecting  the  food  it  feeds  upon,  to  revei,  untrammelled, 


CHARGES    AGAINST   THE   JESUITS.  357 

in  all  the  wide  fields  ot  human  iniquity.  Like  the  charge  against 
the  early  Christians,  of  being  "  enemies  of  mankind,"  or  like 
that  often  made  by  malicious  persons,  "  he  is  a  mean  man,"  it 
has  no  limits  ;  and  every  thing  may  be  included  under  it  that 
may  suit  the  appetite  of  each  individual. 

But  there  are  certain  instincts  in  envy,  malice,  and  preju 
dice,  that  seem  to  have  been  provided  by  God  Himself  on  pur- 
pose to  defeat  the  ends  aimed  at  by  these  base  passions.  Envy 
always  depreciates  superior  merit  /  and  when  the  act  itself  is 
too  good  to  be  denied,  never  fails  to  impute  an  improper  motive 
to  him  who  performed  it;  while  malice,  in  its  bitterness,  is  never 
satisfied  with  imputing  to  its  victim  any  thing  short  of  the  most 
enormous  and  improbable  crimes,  and  the  more  innocent  the 
victim,  the  more  cordially  it  hates  him,  because  the  more  unlike 
itself;  and  prejudice  could  not  claim  its  peculiar  merit,  if  it  be- 
lieved reasonable  charges,  upon  sufficient  testimony,  but  must 
out-suspect  and  out-guess  every  thing  else. 

One  of  the  difficulties  that  occurred  to  me,  in  my  reflections 
upon  this  alleged  oath,  was  the  extreme  folly  of  attempting  to 
bind  men,  by  an  oath,  who  had  no  conscience.  To  swear  men 
by  "the  blessed  Trinity,  and  the  blessed  Sacrament,"  while 
they  called  "  all  the  heavenly  and  glorious  hosts  above  to  wit- 
ness," that  they  would  commit  all  the  crimes  possible,  if  neces- 
sary, did  seem  to  me  the  most  futile  and  the  most  idle.  What 
ideas  of  the  obligation  of  an  oath  could  such  men  have  ?  They 
are  alleged  to  have  had  no  virtue  upon  which  conscience  could 
rest.  Men  who  could  deliberately  go  into  such  an  association, 
and  then  undertake  to  obey  these  secret  instructions,  could  no 
more  be  trusted,  than  rogues  and  murderers 

When,  for  my  own  satisfaction,  I  was  inquiring  into  the 
truth  of  Christianity,  I  was  struck  with  the  peculiar  force  of  one 
argument.  It  was  insisted  that  we  could  not  account  for  the 
conduct  of  the  apostles,  upon  the  supposition  that  they  had 
combined  to  assert  a  system  of  falsehood,  and  to  palm  it  upon 
the  world — that  it  was  impossible  to  combine  twelve  men,  and 
send  them  out  into  all  the  world,  to  preach  the  same  falsehoods, 
and  that  all  of  them  should  remain  faithful,  on  all  occasions, 
however  painful  the  test,  and  not  betray  the  secret.  I  could 
well  understand  how  such  a  union  could  be  formed  and  kept 


358  OIUKGKS    AGAINST   THE   JESUITS. 

together,  upon  the  basis  of  truth,  but  never  upon  that  of  false- 
hood, when  the  same  was  known  to  the  whole  party.  I  knew 
there  were  moments  when  the  truth  would  come ; 

"  For  e'en  the  rogue  by  fits  is  fair  and  wise  *  — 

that  all  men  had  an  inward  conviction  and  dread  of  future  pun- 
ishment, and  in  the  honest  hour  of  death,  when  the 

„  "  Scathing  thought  of  execrated  years," 

brought  up  before  the  dying  vision  of  the  guilty  culprit  the 
blurred  and  blotted  page  of  the  ignominious  past — that  then 
murder  icould  out.  Some  of  them  would  tell  it — some  would 
let  it  out. 

How  then  will  this  argument  apply  to  the  Jesuits  as  an  order 
of  men,  governed  by  certain  rules  applicable  to  the  whole  class  ? 
It  is  alleged  in  substance  by  their  accusers,  that  they  had  one 
set  of  rules  for  the  public,  which  were  good  enough,  and  another 
set  of  rules  to  be  kept  a  profound  secret,  from  all  persons  but 
members  of  the  order.  These  secret  rules  contained  the  horri- 
ble sentiments  charged,  and  were  all  alleged  to  be  printed  in  a 
book  called  "  The  Secreta  Monita,"  and  kept  for  the  use  of 
all  the  members. 

The  order  was  intended  to  be  perpetual,  and  its  members  were 
expected,  to  become  numerous,  and  to  be  scattered  all  over  the 
wide  earth.  And  so  they  were.  They  numbered  some  ten 
thousand  members,  at  the  date  of  their  suppression.  It  was  a 
most  extraordinary  combination.  The  mind  that  originated  it 
must  have  been  at  one  and  the  same  time  a  giant  and  a  pigmy 
— must  have  possessed  grand  and  sublime  ideas — systematic 
powers,  and  yet  not  a  particle  of  principle,  and  not  the  slightest 
knowledge  of  human  nature.  All  the  members  of  this  body 
must  have  had  strange  and  singular  views.  Like  other  men, 
they  knew  they  must  die — that  their  ranks  must  be  supplied 
with  new  members — that  these  would  be  induced  to  apply  for 
admission  upon  the  basis  of  the  published  rules,  which  were 
honest ;  but  that  after  they  became  members,  they  were  to  be 
changed  from  pious,  honest,  and  sincere  men,  to  monsters  of 
crime ;  and  that  so  perfect  was  the  logic  of  the  order  that  h 
never  failed  to  make  this  conversion  from  honesty  to  villany ; 


ORAKQE8    AGAINST   THE   JESUITS.  359 

PO  that  there  was  not  one  left  to  tell  the  story,  that  such  infa- 
mous principles  and  oaths  had  been  proposed  to  him,  and  by 
him  rejected  with  scorn  and  indignation.  In  other  words,  they 
must  have  thought  that  the  most  effectual  way  to  organize  a 
band  of  abandoned  reprobates,  was  to  put  forth  a  platform  in 
public,  that  would  only  invite  the  pious  and  good,  but  when 
once  in  the  order,  that  each  new  member,  though  deceived  and 
defrauded,  would  at  once,  by  some  extraordinary  magic,  aban- 
don all  his  previous  views,  and  submit  willingly,  kindly,  to  this 
infamous  deception,  and  work  faithfully  and  continuously,  in 
upholding  this  same  stupendous  fraud. 

Not  only  so,  but  they  must  have  thought  that  the  book  con- 
taining their  secret  rules,  could  never  come  to  light  by  any  of 
the  ten  thousand  accidents  of  life — that  although  in  the  hands 
of  all  Jesuits,  scattered  all  over  the  world,  that  still  when  one 
died  his  book  would  not  be  left  behind  him,  to  fall  into  the 
hands  of  some  one  who  might  betray  the  mighty  secret — that 
when  one  of  their  members  committed  murder  by  poison  or  as- 
sassination, that  no  chemical  test  could  be  found  to  show  the 
existence  of  the  deadly  drug  in  the  stomach  of  the  deceased, 
and  the  spilled  blood  of  the  assassinated  would  leave  no  stain — 
and  when  they  went  upon  their  midnight  excursions  of  crime, 
they  would  leave  no  trace,  nor  track,  but  flit  through  the  air, 
like  wicked  spirits,  unseen,  but  felt.  These  men  seem  never  to 
have  understood  the  one  plain  simple  fact,  that  the  introduction  of 
every  new  conspirator,  only  increased  the  danger  of  detection ; 
but  like  some  foolish  people  who  tell  their  secrets  to  every- 
body, that  they  may  have  good  help  to  keep  them,  these  men, 
while  utterly  destitute  of  principle,  still  had  unlimited  confi- 
dence in  each  other,  and  never  once  suspected,  that  men  capa- 
ble of,  and  pledged  to  commit,  every  possible  crime,  must  cer- 
tainly, sooner  or  later,  fall  out  among  themselves,  and  betray 
the  whole  conspiracy.  If  these  monstrous  charges  be  true, 
these  men  were  extraordinary  monsters,  destitute  alike  of  all 
principle  and  of  all  common  sense.  If  I  could  believe  such 
charges,  then  I  should  not  only  consider  the  Jesuits  as  the 
greatest  mass  of  conglomerated  vice  that  ever  disgraced  hu- 
manity, but  as  the  greatest  collection  of  fools  that  ever  de- 
graded human  intellect.  And  I  am  willing  to  say,  in  the  face 


300  CHARGES    AGAINST   THE   JESUITS. 

of  all  men,  that  I  am  one  of  those  charitable,  credulous  crea- 
tures (fools  if  you  please)  who  believe  that  the  great  mass  of 
all  churches,  and  of  all  the  different  orders  of  those  churches, 
are  honest  in  their  convictions ;  and  that,  m  the  very  nature 
and  reason  of  things,  it  could  not  be  otherwise — that  honest 
conviction,  though  erroneous,  is  the  only  basis  upon  which  any 
society  of  men  can  be  held  together  from  age  to  age — and  that 
no  man,  or  set  of  men,  having  the  least  claim  to  intellect,  ever 
did  dream,  or  ever  will  dream  of  organizing  a  permanent  order 
of  men,  upon  any  other  basis.  As  well  might  it  be  assumed, 
that  a  resident  and  fixed  community  could  be  all  rogues,  who 
would  wear  out  the  very  property  itself  in  stealing  it  continually 
one  from  the  other,  and  yet  competition  would  not  ruin  the 
trade,  and  destroy  the  union  and  peace  of  the  society,  as  that 
a  numerous,  widely-dispersed,  and  gifted  body  of  religious  men, 
could  be  held  together  when  even  a  majority  are  hypocrites 
and  villains ;  much  less  when  all  are  so. 

But  the  history  of  the  Jesuits,  as  well  as  the  admissions  of 
candid  men  not  of  their  religion,  show  that  they  are  a  most  dis- 
tinguished order  of  men — distinguished  for  their  profound  and 
varied  erudition — their  indefatigable  industry — their  zeal — their 
heroic  devotion — their  untiring  energy,  and  their  unfaltering 
and  steady  perseverance.  These  are  noble  traits— fit  compan- 
ions of  integrity.  When  I  see  the  fervid  and  intrepid  Paul 
leave  his  own  country,  and  go  through  strange  lands,  suffering 
persecution  and  shame  at  every  step,  and  wearing  out  his  very 
existence  in  preaching  the  mild  gospel  of  the  despised  Nazarine, 
I  am  compelled,  in  the  innermost  recesses  of  my  heart,  to  admit 
his  motives  were  good — his  integrity  unquestioned ;  for  I  can- 
not find  any  other  adequate  motive,  upon  any  principle  of  reason 
or  charity,  by  which  to  account  for  such  voluntary  sacrifices. 
And  when  I  see  the  labors  and  sacrifices  of  the  Jesuit  fathers  in 
every  land,  among  all  nations — how  they  composed  the  noblest 
orations,  the  finest  histories,  the  sublimest  poems,  and  wrote  the 
ablest  treatises  on  every  branch  of  science,  (even  that  of  gun. 
nery) — when  I  see  these  devoted  missionaries  go 

"  Through  foaming  waves  to  distant  shores," 
visiting  every  people  in  the  world,  and  like  the  sainted  Xavier 


CHARfiKS    AGAINST   THE      ESUITS.  361 

*  Whose  lips  were  love,  whose  touch  was  power, 
Whose  thoughts  were  vivid  flame," 

leaving  their  worn-out  or  slaughtered  bodies  in  every  savage 
ciime,  and  enduring  toils  and  dangers,  sufferings  and  privations, 
second  only  to  those  of  the  apostles  and  earlier  saints,  I  cannot 
deny  to  these  men  holy  and  lofty  motives ;  for  it  seems  not 
more  natural  for  the  oak  to  grow  from  the  acorn,  than  for  noble 
and  virtuous  deeds  and  heroic  sacrifices,  to  spring  from  corre- 
sponding motives.  As  certain  acids  are  the  sure  tests  of  certain 
metals,  so  great  and  voluntary  sacrifices,  without  temporal 
reward,  are  the  never-failing  criterions  of  sincerity.  And  when 
I  witness  the  perseverance,  and  patient  and  continued  duration 
of  this  body  of  men  through  calumny,  hatred,  and  contempt,  in 
a  cause  in  which  they  can  have  no  greater  personal  interest 
than  others,  I  cannot  see  any  other  adequate  motive  than  those 
high  and  holy  purposes  that  spring  from  a  fixed  conviction  of 
being  in  the  right,  in  the  noblest  of  causes.  And  I  am  com- 
pelled to  this  conviction,  notwithstanding  all  the  clamor  against 
these  men ;  and  why  ?  If  it  be  true,  as  nearly  all  Catholics 
think,  and  many  others  admit,  that  this  order  of  men  are  the 
most  eminent  for  their  knowledge,  virtue,  zeal,  and  devotion,  of 
all  the  orders  in  the  Roman  church  or  in  the  world,  then  from 
the  very  reason  and  nature  of  things,  this  state  of  misrepresenta- 
tion must  follow ;  for  if  there  be  any  envy  in  rival  orders  of 
their  own  Church,  it  would  fix  itself  upon  them,  for  envy  always 
seeks  "  higher  game."  And  if  there  be  any  fear,  malice,  or  pre 
judice  in  the  ranks  of  opponents,  they  would  be  mainly  directed 
against  them ;  for  fear  has  an  unerring  instinct  in  apprehending 
the  most  formidable  danger,  while  malice  is  fertile  in  inventing, 
and  interested  prejudice  most  ready  in  believing,  charges  against 
the  most  distinguished  men  in  the  ranks  of  opponents.  And 
when  we  hear  the  writer  in  the  Encyclopedia  say,  as  I  have 
quoted  above,  that  "  their  indefatigable  industry,  and  countless 
artifices  in  resisting  the  progress  of  the  reformed  religion,  per- 
petuated the  most  pernicious  errors  of  popery,"  we  have  the 
key  to  the  motive  that  keeps*  alive  this  denunciation.  And 
when  we  hear  Mr.  Campbell  say,  "The  Jesuits,  that  standing 
army  of  the  Pope,  are  revived,  and  are  inundating  our  country. 
Other  fraternities  are  but  the  militia ;  but  these  are  the  trained 


362  CHARGES    AGAINST   THE   JESUITS. 

band  life-guards  of  the  papacy,"  (Debate  C.  &  P.,  301,)  we  can 
readily  see  where  the  shoe  pinches.  When  you  go  into  an  or- 
chard, even  months  after  the  fruit  is  all  gone,  and  you  see  them 
a  noble-looking  tree,  whose  wide-spreading  top  is  filled  with 
sticks,  so  that  you  know  everybody  has  been  "pitching  into  it," 
you  may  know,  with  unerring  certainty,  that  this  tree  produces 
the  best  fruit  in  the  orchard. 

But  the  circumstances  connected  with  the  alleged  discovery 
of  this  Secreta  Monita,  upon  their  face,  proved  to  my  satisfac- 
tion that  it  was  a  forgery.  This  event  happened  in  the  Infidel 
times  preceding  the  horrors  that  followed  the  French  Revolu- 
tion. It  was  the  age  of  Voltaire  and  other  distinguished  Infi- 
dels. Voltaire  was  accustomed  to  say  that  "  he  was  tired  of 
hearing  it  said,  that  twelve  men  had  been  able  to  convert  the 
world  from  Paganism  to  Christianity,  for  that  he  would  let  it 
be  seen  that  one  man  was  able  to  unchristianize  it."  At  the 
head  of  his  letters  to  his  Infidel  conspirators  against  revelation, 
he  was  accustomed  to  say,  "  Let  us  crush  the  wretch,"  meaning 
Jesus  Christ  and  his  religion.  In  the  private  correspondence 
of  Voltaire  and  D'Alembert,  it  is  acknowledged  there  was  no 
hope  of  success  in  destroying  Christianity,  unless  the  Jesuits 
were  first  put  down.  This  order  of  men,  by  their  talents,  in- 
dustry, and  zeal,  were  able  to  keep  in  check  the  attempts  of  the 
Infidels,  by  refuting  and  exposing  their  sophistry.  The  Parlia 
ment  of  France  in  1762,  notwithstanding  all  they  say  about  re- 
ligion, &c.,  was  composed  mostly  of  the  disciples  of  Voltaire. 

A  parliament  thus  constituted  could  be  readily  imposed 
upon.  It  required  only  a  few  conspirators  to  accomplish  this. 
It  is  a  fact  well  shown  by  the  testimony  of  history,  that  a  legis- 
lative assembly,  from  its  constitution,  is  as  readily  deceived  in 
times  of  prejudice  and  excitement,  as  the  same  number  of  indi- 
viduals taken  promiscuously.  Such  assemblies  are  peculiarly 
sensitive  to  outside  clamor.  They  readily  believe  almost  any 
thing  that  they  think  is  popular.  This  fact  is  shown  by  the 
history  of  the  English  Parliament.  This  body  was  deceived  to 
such  an  extent  as  to  believe  the  repeated  perjuries  of  Titus 
Gates  and  others  and  many  innocent  persons  were  sent  to  the 
block  in  consequence.  In  1666  the  city  of  London  was  burned, 
•and  the  conflagration  charged  upon  the  Catholics.  It  was  be- 


CHAUGBS    AGAINST   THE   JESUITS.  363 

lieved,  and  a  monument  erected  and  inscribed,  commemorating 
the  supposed  dark  deed,  of  which  Pope  has  this  exoressive 
couplet : 

"  Where  London's  column,  pointing  to  the  sicies, 
Like  a  tall  bully,  lifts  its  head,  and  lies." 

A  few  years  ago  the  Corporation  of  London  had  the  mag- 
nanimity to  have  this  inscription  chipped  off. 

To  accomplish  the  suppression  of  the  Jesuits  in  France,  the 
Infidels  knew  could  not  be  done  by  any  outward  attack  of  theirs. 
They  stood  as  declared  enemies  of  religion.  The  plan  was  to 
operate  upon  the  Parliament.  They  knew  from  the  examples 
in  the  English  Parliament  how  easy  this  could  be  effected, 
when  the  prejudices  of  the  members  were  appealed  to.  It  was 
easy  to  reproduce  this  forged  Secreta  Monita,  originated  by 
some  anonymous  calumniator  in  1616.  All  they  had  to  do  was 
to  palm  it  upon  the  parliament  as  the  work  of  the  Jesuits.  That 
was  easily  done.  Ever  since  Joseph  had  the  silver  cup  concealed 
in  the  sack  of  Benjamin,  this  expedient  was  well  known.  It 
was  used  by  Joseph  from  a  good  motive,  but  it  has  been  re- 
sorted to  by  malicious  persons  in  every  age.  No  artifice  is 
more  frequently  practised,  or  is  more  easily  accomplished. 
Cases  of  the  kind  have  often  occurred  in  every  country.  Two 
men  were  once  partners,  and  had  some  difficulty  in  their  settle- 
ment. One  became  the  violent  enemy  of  the  other,  and  perse- 
cuted him  on  every  occasion.  The  persecuted  determined  he 
would  leave  the  kingdom  and  emigrate  to  America  to  avoid  his 
implacable  enemy.  In  preparing  to  make  his  departure  he 
went  to  London  and  took  a  room  at  a  public  house.  His  old 
enemy  met  him  in  the  streets,  and  watched  him  go  into  his 
room.  The  next  morning  his  enemy  watched  the  room  until 
he  saw  him  leave  and  go  into  the  street.  His  enemy  then  went 
to  another  room  on  the  same  floor,  and  .  stole  a  watch,  and  se- 
creted it  in  his  victim's  room.  The  owner  of  the  watch  missed 
it,  and  gave  the  alarm.  This  man  was  by,  and  informed  the 
police  that  a  very  suspicious  character  lodged  in  a  certain  room. 
Of  course  they  searched  the  room  and  found  the  watch.  The 
victim  was  arrested,  protested  his  ignorance  of  the  whole  mat- 
ter, was  tried,  convicted,  and  executed.  Years  afterwards  hia 


364:  CHARGES    AGAINST    THE    JESUITS. 

murderer  was  brought  up  to  receive  sentence  for  some  criminal 
offence,  and  before  the  court,  admitted  that  he  had  caused  this 
man's  execution. 

And  the  circumstances  stated,  show  clearly,  that  such  an 
artifice  was  used  upon  the  occasion  of  the  alleged  discovery  of 
this  Secreta  Monita.  The  very  haste  with  which  the  parliament 
acted  in  reference  to  so  important  a  measure,  shows  they  had 
been  informed  that  such  a  work  would  be  found.  Intimations 
had  been  no  doubt  given  out  that  if  such  a  hasty  measure  was 
adopted  the  insidious  Jesuits  would  be  caught.  Having  suc- 
ceeded in  procuring  the  passage  of  such  an  act,  it  was  easy  for 
a  single  individual  to  carry  with  him  the  book  concealed  under 
his  dress,  and  when  the  apartments  of  the  college  were  searched, 
to  place  this  book  among  the  others  found  there.  It  required 
but  the  act  of  a  single  individual — one  of  the  police,  or  any  other 
individual  who  was  permitted  to  go  there. 

And  how  easy  it  is,  if  we  depend  upon  such  testimony,  to 
ruin  any  man's  reputation,  or  the  character  of  any  body  of  men. 
Such  a  system  of  reasoning  places  all  good  men  at  the  mercy 
of  conspirators.  And  when  the  charge,  upon  its  face,  is  so  ut- 
terly absurd  and  impracticable,  and  beyond  all  reason,  such  a 
circumstance  ought  not  to  weigh  as  a  feather  against  a  body  of 
men  so  numerous — so  distinguished — so  much  in  the  way  of  its 
opponents — and  for  whose  suppression  there  existed  so  many 
manifest  motives.  To  ruin  such  a  body  of  men,  if  sensible  and 
just  men  can  believe  such  mighty  charges  upon  such  testimony, 
requires  nothing  but  a  want  of  principle — a  small  amount  of 
cunning — and  the  adroitness  of  an  ordinary  rogue,  in  a  single 
individual. 

Having  succeeded  in  obtaining  the  suppression  of  the  order 
in  France,  the  next  step  was  to  procure  its  suppression  in  other 
States,  and  finally  by  the  Pope  himself.  And  if  we  examine 
into  the  character  and  motives  of  the  principal  men  who  took 
the  leading  part  in  these  violent  measures  against  the  order,  we 
shall  see  that  they  were  just  the  men  to  urge  them  onward. 
They  were  generally  either  avowed  or  secret  enemies  of  reli- 
gion, and  especially  of  the  Catholic  system.  As  a  very  candid 
*'rotest?ant  writer,  speaking  of  the  persecution  of  the  Jesuits  \>y 


CrtARttES   AGAINST  THE  JESUITS.  365 

me  Portuguese  government,  and  the  destruction  of  their  college 
at  Pernambuco,  says : 

"Reader,  throw  a  veil  over  thy  recollection  for  a  little 
while,  and  forget  the  cruel,  unjust,  and  unmerited  censures  thou 
hast  heard  against  an  unoffending  order.  This  place  was  once 
the  Jesuits'  College,  and  originally  built  by  those  charitable; 
fathers.  Ask  the  aged  and  respectable  inhabitants  of  Pernam- 
buco, and  they  will  tell  thee,  that  the  destruction  of  the  society 
of  the  Jesuits  was  a  terrible  disaster  to  the  public,  and  its  con- 
sequences severely  felt  to  the  present  day." 

"  When  Pambal  took  the  reins  of  government  into  his  hands, 
virtue  and  learning  beamed  within  the  college  walls.  Public 
catechism  to  the  children,  and  religious  instruction  to  all,  flowed 
daily  from  the  mouths  of  its  venerable  priests.  They  were 
loved,  revered,  and  respected  throughout  the  whole  town.  The 
illuminating  philosophers  of  the  day  had  sworn  to  exterminate 
Christian  knowledge,  and  the  College  of  Pernambuco  was 
doomed  to  founder  in  the  general  storm.  To  the  long-lasting 
sorrow  and  disgrace  of  Portugal,  the  philosophers  blinded  her 
king,  and  flattered  his  prime  minister.  Pambal  was  exactly  the 
tool  these  sappers  of  every  public  and  private  virtue  wanted. 
He  had  the  naked  sword  of  power  in  his  own  hand,  and  his 
heart  was  as  hard  as  flint.  He  struck  a  mortal  blow,  and  the 
Society  of  Jesuits,  throughout  the  Portuguese  dominions,  was 
no  more."  (Wanderings  in  South  America,  &c.  By  Charles 
Waterton,  Esq. ;  p.  82.  Cited  Con.  H.  &  B.,  p.  461.) 

The  Pope  was  induced  to  suppress  the  order  in  1773.  In 
the  Brief  of  Clement  XIV.  he  is  careful  not  to  say  that  he  be- 
lieved the  charges  to  be  true,  but  on  the  contrary,  bases  the 
suppression  upon  the  grounds  of  expediency  and  for  the  sake 
of  peace.  The  Parliament  of  Paris  restored  the  order.  In  1801 
it  was  restored  in  Russia,  and  in  1814  in  Sardinia,  and  in  1814, 
by  Pope  Pius  VII.  The  King  of  Prussia,  though  Protestant, 
did  not  suppress  the  order  in  his  dominions,  but  fostered  it. 
He  did  not  believe  the  charges. 

It  has  been  the  misfortune  of  this  order  to  incur  the  hostility 
of  Infidels,  and  especially  those  of  Europe.  We  see  that  an  In- 
fidel brought  the  Secreta  Monita  to  the  United  States.  Tho 
distinguished  novelist,  the  Infidel  Eugene  Sue,  in  his  late  work, 


366  CHARGES    AGAINST   THE   JESUITS. 

the  Wandering  Jew,  has  imputed  to  the  Jesuits  all  the  dark 
and  horrible  traits  of  his  own  vitiated  imagination. 

This  order  is  evidently  a  foe  worthy  of  their  steel,  and  in 
their  way.  Unable  to  meet  their  arguments  and  exertions  by 
fair  means,  they  resorted  to  forgery  and  base  imposition  to  sup- 
press the  order.  They  succeeded  for  a  time  under  a  state  of 
clamor  and  excitement.  But  justice,  though  slow,  is  certain,  and 
•Jie  order  has  been  restored.  It  had  once  many  enemies  among 
Catholics,  but  these  have  dwindled  to  a  very  few. 

That  these  charges  against  the  entire  order  are  absurd  and 
barefaced  fabrications,  I  have  no  doubt.  That  individuals  of 
the  order,  as  individuals  of  any  and  every  body,  have  sometimes 
erred,  I  have  as  little  doubt.  They  would  be  more  than  men  if 
they  had  not.  That  the  suppression  of  the  order  by  Clement 
XIV.  was  mainly  produced  by  the  exertions  of  Infidels  in  that 
Infidel  age,  I  have  no  doubt.  And  that  the  clamor  is  still  at- 
tempted to  be  kept  up  by  persons  whose  interests  or  prejudices 
render  them  capable  of  believing  any  charge,  supported  by  even 
the  semblance  of  testimony,  against  their  opponents  in  religion, 
I  have  no  doubt. 

The  charges,  if  made  against  individuals  of  the  order,  would 
not  affect  the  order  itself,  in  the  minds  of  just  men;  and  when 
made  against  the  entire  order,  assume  a  shape  so  monstrous,  un- 
reasonable, and  absurd,  that  I  do  not  think  any  impartial  and 
well-informed  man  could  be  deceived  into  a  belief  of  them 
When  I  first  read  them,  I  was  a  Protestant,  and  all  my  sym- 
pathies were  with  Protestantism ;  but  this  charge  of  universal 
and  unmitigated  depravity  against  so  numerous  a  body  of  men, 
was  rather  too  heavy  a  draft  upon  my  credulity. 

It  seems  to  me  that  every  good  man  should  be  very  careful 
to  be  just  to  others.  The  rule  of  sweet  charity  is  tho  only  one 
under  which  human  virtue  can  Jive.  It  is  better  to  allow  too 
much  merit  to  men  than  too  little.  Men  are  frail  enough,  and 
their  virtues  are  sufficiently  scant ;  but  when  we  detract  from 
that  little,  and  accuse  them  of  monstrous  crimes  they  never  com- 
mitted, we  certainly  commit  a  most  grievous  sin  against  them, 
and  especially  against  ourselves.  If  we  err  in  imputing  too  few 
sins  to  our  fellow-creatures,  we  may  be  called  weak,  but  not 
criminal.  We  at  least  lean  to  the  side  of  charity.  But  if  wt 


CHARGES    AGAINST    CERTAIN    POPES.  .367 

impute  to  them  crimes  they  never  committed,  we  commit,  our- 
selves, a  grievous  fault ;  for  we  are  commanded  to  "  Judge  not, 
that  ye  he  not  judged :  for  with  what  judgment  ye  judge,  ye 
shall  be  judged."  It  is  a  fearful  thing  for  us  to  judge  harshly 
and  unjustly,  as  we  must  expect  to  be  judged  by  the  same  rule. 
These  considerations  satisfied  me  that  the  Jesuits  were  an 
eminent,  devoted,  yet  misrepresented  body  of  men.  And  when 
I  find  what  I  take  to  be  slandered  merit,  I  hesitate  not  to  avow 
myself  hi  friend  ;  for  I  do  not  know  what  other  rule  a  good  man 
can  follow,  than  to  do  that  which  is  strictly  right  in  itself,  and 
trust  in  God  and  his  country.  Too  many  well-disposed  men  are 
apt  to  flinch  from  a  good,  but  unpopular  victim  ;  but  "  ''tis  not  so 
above."  Innocence  is  purer  when  persecuted, 

"  And  love  is  loveliest  when  embalmed  in  tears," 

and  virtue  is  never  so  beautiful  as  when  calumniated  and  de- 
spised. It  was  so  in  the  beginning.  It  must  always  be  so.  And 
I  cannot  but  think  that  if  any  good  and  impartial  man,  who  has 
taken  up  an  impression  that  such  wholesale  charges  are  true, 
will  re-examine  the  question  calmly  and  dispassionately,  he  will 
enjoy  that  sweet  and  generous  pleasure  which  a  just  man  feels 
when  he  finds  he  has  been  mistaken  in  supposing  that  his  brother 
had  been  guilty  of  a  crime. 

§  3.   Charges  against  certain  Popes. 

Among  other  charges  made  by  Mr.  Campbell,  Dr.  Spring, 
Mr.  Breckenridge,  and  other  Protestant  controvertists  against 
the  Catholic  church,  is  the  wicked  character  of  some  of  the 
Popes.  The  instances  can  be  seen  in  the  debate  of  Campbell 
and  Purcell,  and  in  the  controversy  of  Hughes  and  Brecken- 
ridge. 

The  most  general  and  sweeping  charges  I  found  in  the  Dis- 
sertation of  Dr.  Spring,  on  page  71,  where  the  learned  Divine 
says: 

"  But  it  is  a  fact  which  no  Romanist  will  deny,  that  the  Popes 
of  Rome,  as  a  body  of  men,  have  been  a  disgrace  to  the  human 
race." 

This  statement  must  have  been  made  at  random,  for  I  found 
it  contradicted  by  every  Catholic  writer  whose  works  I  read  at 


368  CHARGES    AGAINST    CERTAIN    POPHS. 

the  time  and  wince,  who  spoke  upon  the  subject  ut  all.  I  have 
not  been  able  to  find  a  Catholic  writer  who  did  not  deny  it, 
when  the  subject  he  treated  made  it  proper  for  him  to  notice 
the  charge.  All  those  that  I  have  read  very  cheerfully  admitted 
that  the  conduct  of  some  individual  Popes  had  been  scandalous 
and  wicked,  while  they  insisted  that  the  great  majority  were 
worthy  of  the  station  they  filled,  and  many  of  them  martyrs  and 
saints  of  the  first  character ;  and  that  these  wicked  Popes  did 
not  bear  a  greater  proportion  to  the  whole  number,  than  Judas 
did  to  the  twelve. 

These  charges  related  to  some  of  the  Popes  of  the  middle 
ages.  Those  of  the  first  ages  of  the  Church  are  admitted  to 
have  been  saints ;  while  those  of  the  later  ages  are  admitted,  by 
Catholic  and  Protestant  writers,  to  have  been  unexceptionable 
in  their  moral  deportment :  as  by  the  Protestant  writer  Ranke, 
in  his  History  of  the  Popes,  as  stated  by  Dr.  Wiseman  in  his 
Moorfield  Lectures.  (Lee.  VIII.) 

In  making  these  and  other  charges  against  the  Catholic 
Church,  both  Mr.  Campbelland  Mr.  Breckenridge  quoted  Du 
Pin  as  an  authentic  Catholic  historian.  But  his  character  as 
such  was  denied  by  both  Bishops  Hughes  and  Purcell. 

It  appeared  that  Du  Pin  had  a  secret  correspondence  with 
Amhbishop  Wake,  with  a  view  to  the  union  of  the  English  and 
Catholic  Churches.  His  secret  papers  were  examined  on  the 
10th  of  February,  1719,  at  the  Palais  Royal  in  Paris  and  it  was 
found,  as  Lafitau  testifies,  that  in  his  letter  to  Wake,  he  pro- 
posed to  give  up  Auricular  Confession,  Transubstantiation,  Re- 
ligious vows,  the  fast  of  Lent  and  abstinence,  the  Supremacy 
of  the  Pope,  and  the  celibacy  of  the  clergy.  He  was  also  se- 
cretly married,  and  after  his  death,  his  widow  came  publicly 
forward  to  assert  her  right  to  his  property.  To  support  his  au- 
thority, Mr.  Campbell  read  the  certificates  printed  with  the  work, 
and  purporting  to  be  the  approbation  of  the  Doctors  of  the  Sor- 
bonne.  Two  of  these  certificates  purport  to  be  signed  by 
"Blampton,  Rector  of  St.  Men-is ;  and  Hideux,  Curate  of  St. 
Innocents,"  and  one  by  the  former  only.  They  approve  the 
work  as  containing  "nothing  contrary  to  the  Catholic  faith  or 
to  good  manners,"  but  do  not  approve  or  disapprove  the  work 
as  authentic  history. 


CHARGES    AGAINST   CERTAIN    POPES.  369 

The  Doctors  of  the  Sorbonne  were  appointed  by  the  king. 
The  authority  is  not  of  the  highest  grade,  though  respectable. 
Du  Pin,  at  the  time  he  wrote  his  history,  was  not  suspected  of 
any  hypocrisy.  He  was  a  very  distinguished  writer,  and  stood 
very  high  with  his  associates.  His  work  was  voluminous,  and 
the  hasty  reading  of  an  author  of  his  standing,  in  an  historical 
work  so  extended,  would  not  enable  any  one  to  judge  properly 
of  its  historical  character.  A  work  upon  doctrine  or  morals  can 
be  judged  very  soon  by  any  competent  divine,  but  a  work  on  his- 
tory, so  extensive,  would  be  far  more  difficult.  It  would  require 
time  and  patient  investigation  to  detect  its  errors.  Such  appro- 
bations are  too  often  given  hastily,  the  judge  relying  too  much 
upon  the  standing  and  character  of  the  author.  Besides,  Du 
Pin  was  a  Jansenist,  and  was  censured  by  Pope  Clement  XL, 
even  during  his  lifetime ;  and  Louis  XIV.  removed  him  from 
the  Sorbonne,  which  was  approved  by  the  Pope.  (Debate  C.  & 
P.,  32,  37.  Con.  H.  &  B.,  372.) 

It  may  be  possible  that  Du  Pin  was  an  authentic  historian  ; 
but  certainly  he  appears  under  circumstances  most  suspicious. 
An  honest  man  may  be  a  member  of  a  certain  Church,  and  may 
write  its  history,  and  that  work  may  be  good  authority  after  he 
has  changed  his  faith,  and  left  the  Church.  But  when  a  man  re- 
mains a  traitor  in  a  Church,  and  seeks  to  betray  it,  and  lives  a 
hypocrite  while  in  it,  there  is  no  trusting  him  for  any  thing.  A 
man  of  distinguished  ability,  and  yet  a  hypocrite,  would  natu- 
rally seek,  in  the  most  insidious  manner  possible,  to  injure  the 
Church  of  which  he  was  a  member.  He  could  but  hate  a 
Church  whose  faith  he  could  not  believe ;  and  he  could  but  have 
some  fell  purpose  when  he  believed  one  thing  and  told  another. 
Who  can  trust  such  a  man  ? 

Mr.  Campbell  did  indeed  state  that  he  relied  upon  him  only 
in  so  far  as  he  is  sustained  by  other  historians ;  but  as  he  con- 
tinued to  quote  from  him,  after  objection  was  made  by  Bishop 
Purcell,  and  after  Mr.  C.  had  read  the  objections  of  Bishop 
Hughes,  as  he  states  himself,  (Debate  C.  &  P.,  28,)  I  could  not 
well  understand  his  reasons.  If,  as  he  asserted,  Du  Pin  was 
sustained  by  other  historians,  it  certainly  would  have  been  more 
satisfactory  to  have  read  entirely  from  them. 

And  herein  I  remarked  a  great  and  palpable  difference  be 
33 


370  CHARGES  AGAINST  CERTAIN  POPES. 

tween  the  course  of  Catholic  and  Protestant  controvertists.  I 
found  the  Catholics  generally  quoting  from  the  most  eminent 
and  reliable  Protestant  writers  and  historians,  men  of  the  most 
unblemished  character,  private  and  public,  while,  on  the  con- 
trary, I  found  Protestants  generally  quoting  from  the  most  un- 
worthy and  suspicious  Catholics,  such  as  Du  Pin,  Father  Paul, 
Thuanus,  and  others.  The  Debate  between  Elder  Campbell 
and  Bishop  Purcell  is  a  proof  of  this.  So  is  the  Controversy 
between  Hughes  and  Breckenridge.  And  if  any  man  of  fair 
mind  will  calmly  watch  both  parties,  he  will  soon  see  which 
most  relies  upon  unworthy  authority. 

Mr.  Breckenridge  quotes  "Thuanus,  Book  37,  p.  776,"  as  a 
Catholic  historian,  to  prove  alleged  corruptions  at  Rome.  In 
reference  to  whom,  Bishop  Hughes  says :  "  The  history  of  Thu- 
anus has  been  condemned  at  Rome,  by  two  public  decrees ; 
the  one  of  November  9,  1609,  the  other  of  May  10,  1757,  from 
which  fact  the  reader  may  see,  with  how  little  propriety  he  as- 
sumes to  be  called  a  '  Roman  Catholic  historian.'  '  He  was,' 
says  a  modern  author,  (Paquot,)  '  an  audacious  writer  ;  the  im- 
placable enemy  of  the  Jesuits ;  the  calumniator  of  the  Guises ; 
the  copyist,  flatterer,  friend  of  the  Protestants ;  and  was  far 
from  being  even  just  to  the  Holy  See,  the  Council  of  Trent,  or 
any  thing  Catholic.'  "  (Con.  H.  &  B.,  372.) 

But  aside  from  these  disputed  and  not  trustworthy  histo- 
rians, from  the  testimony  of  Baronius  and  other  authentic  Catho- 
lic historians  quoted  by  Mr.  C.  and  Mr.  B.,  there  can  be  nc 
doubt  of  the  scandalous  lives  of  certain  Popes,  such  as  Stephen 
VII.,  Vigilius,  Alexander,  and  others. 

The  whole  number  of  Popes  has  been  nearly  two  hundred 
and  sixty.  "  Of  these,"  says  Bishop  Purcell,  "  the  first  forty 
were  saints,  or  martyrs ;  a  small  number  only,  not  more  than 
twenty,  can  be  called  bad  men  ;  the  rest  were  remarkable  for 
eminent  virtue,  charity,  zeal,  learning,  and  patronage  of  letters." 
(Debate  C.  &  P.,  146.)  Mr.  Breckenridge  and  Mr.  Campbell 
asserted  that  the  number  of  bad  Popes  was  greater  than  twenty, 
and  Mr.  C.  quotes  Genebrard,  who  says,  under  the  year  904, 
"  For  nearly  one  hundred  and  fifty  years,  about  fifty  Popes  de- 
serted wholly  the  virtue  of  their  predecessors,  being  apostate 
rather  than  apostolical  ;  "  but  the  accuracy  of  this  statement  as 


CHARGES    AGAINST   CERTAIN    POPES.  371 

to  the  number  is  disputed  by  Bishop  Purcell.  And,  indeed,  the 
statement  seems  very  loose  and  general.  Such  statements  are 
not  often  accurate. 

As  to  the  exact  number  of  the  Popes  who  disgraced  their  po- 
sition, it  is  difficult,  at  this  time,  to  determine.  That  injustice 
has  been  done  to  some  of  them,  there  can  be  but  little  doubt. 
It  must  seem  obvious  to  sensible  men,  that  the  character  of  a 
prominent  man  depends  greatly  upon  the  temper  of  the  age  in 
which  he  lived.  There  are  often  many  causes,  and  a  peculiar 
concurrence  of  circumstances,  that  involve  a  man's  reputation 
in  doubt  in  some  cases,  and  in  ignominy  in  others,  when  his 
motives  were  good,  and  when  his  measures,  under  the  existing 
circumstances,  were  the  best  that  could  have  been  adopted. 
The  bitter  prejudice,  or  inveterate  enmity,  of  a  single  able  and 
influential  individual,  in  an  age  when  books  were  few,  (for  the 
reason  that  the  art  of  printing  was  then  unknown,)  might  do 
the  greatest  injustice  to  the  person  whose  history  is  sought. 
Nothing  but  a  patient  and  careful  examination  of  the  contempo- 
rary manuscript  documents  on  file  in  the  various  extensive  li- 
braries of  Europe,  can  enable  us  to  do  any  thing  like  justice  to 
the  Popes  of  the  middle  ages.  When  I  have  been  induced  to 
examine  charges  against  individuals,  I  always  go  to  them  foi 
their  side  of  the  question  ;  for  I  never  could  get  all  the  truth 
from  their  enemies.  Most  cases  of  the  kind  are  overdone.  Men 
are  prone  to  have  victims  of  some  kind.  We  see  it  often  in 
communities,  in  reference  to  particular  persons.  The  public 
must  blame  some  one,  and  from  some  cause  or  other,  it  matters 
not  what  it  is,  censure  starts  in  a  particular  direction,  and  when 
once  under  way,  it  is  as  difficult  to  stop  as  a  mountain  torrent. 
It  must  run  its  course.  Even  good  men  are  often  swept  along 
with  it.  It  is  even  so  in  business.  All  hands  rusn  into  great 
excesses  at  intervals.  Human  nature  is  prone  to  varied  and 
unsteady  courses. 

Most  of  these  scandalous  excesses  of  the  Popes  occurred  in 
a  certain  period,  and  about  the  tenth  century.  As  several  bad 
Popes  lived  near  each  other,  it  is  very  natural  for  historians,  a? 
well  as  the  people  of  that  age,  to  confound  both  good  and  bad, 
and  place  them  in  the  same  class.  Poor  Tray  suffered  for  being 
in  bad  comuany,  and  some  of  the  Popes  who  lived  in  the  Middle 


372       .  CHARGES    AGAINST   CERTAIN    POPES. 

Ages,  may  have  suffered  from  the  misfortune  of  having  governed 
the  Church  at  that  period  of  time.  Even  the  most  pious  and 
candid  writers,  from  their  very  detestation  of  vice,  may,  in  their 
melancholy  moments,  do  great  injustice  to  those  who,  though 
guilty  of  some  faults,  are  not  guilty  to  the  extent  supposed.  It 
has  become  a  habit  to  censure  every  thing  done  in  those  ages  ; 
and  doubtless  there  was  much  to  be  blamed.  But  this  habit, 
like  all  other  habits,  may  have  misled  even  just  men.  Those 
ages  were  not  distinguished  for  great  learning,  and  the  people 
of  those  times  were  encompassed  with  difficulties  of  the  most 
oppressive  character.  They  have,  therefore,  few  friends  to  do 
them  justice,  and  many  disgusted  and  interested  enemies  to  re- 
proach their  memory.  The  natural  tendency  of  human  opinion 
is  to  elevate  some  favorite  ages  to  the  skies,  and  to  depreciate 
even  the  real  merits  of  those  that  are  despised  and  neglected. 

But  justice  should  be  done.  The  genuine  truth  ought  to  be 
known.  And  it  appears  that  of  late,  a  better  spirit  begins  to 
show  itself.  "  Within  the  last  ten  years,"  says  Dr.  Wiseman, 
(Moorfield  Lee.,  L.  viii.,)  "  a  succession  of  works  has  been  ap- 
pearing on  the  continent,  in  which  the  character  of  the  Popes 
of  the  middle  ages  has  been  not  only  vindicated,  but  placed  in 
the  most  beautiful  and  magnificent  point  of  view.  And  I  thank 
God  that  they  are,  as  I  just  said,  from  a  quarter  wrhich  cannot 
be  suspected — every  one  of  the  works  to  which  I  allude  being 
the  production  of  a  Protestant.  We  have  had,  within  these 
few  years,  several  lives,  or  vindications,  of  the  Pontiff  who  has 
been  considered  the  embodying  type  of  that  thirst  for  aggran- 
dizement which  is  attributed  to  the  Popes  of  the  middle  ages. 
I  speak  of  Gregory  VII.,  commonly  known  by  the  name  of  Hil- 
debrand.  In  a  large  voluminous  work,  published  a  few  years 
ago  by  Voight,  and  approved  of  by  the  most  eminent  historians 
of  modern  Germany,  we  have  the  life  of  that  Pontiff  drawn  up 
from  contemporaneous  documents,  from  his  own  correspondence, 
and  the  evidence  of  both  his  friends  and  enemies.  The  result  is 
— and  I  wish  I  could  give  you  the  words  of  the  author — that  if 
the  historian  abstract  himself  from  mere  petty  prejudices  and 
national  feelings,  and  look  on  the  character  of  that  Pontiff  from 
a  higher  ground,  he  must  pronounce  him  a  man  of  most  up- 
right  mind,  of  a  most  perfect  disinterestedness,  and  of  the  purest 


CHARGES    AGAINST    CERTAIN    POPES.  373 

zeal ;  one  who  acted  in  every  instance  just  as  his  position  called 
upon  him  to  act,  and  made  use  of  no  means,  save  what  he  was 
authorized  to  use.  In  this  he  is  followed  by  others,  who  speak 
of  him  with  an  enthusiasm  which  a  Catholic  could  not  have  ex- 
ceeded ;  and  of  one,  it  has  been  observed,  that  he  cannot  speak 
of  that  Pontiff  without  rapture."  Of  these  other  Protestant 
writers  Dr.  Wiseman  gives  in  a  note  the  names  of  Eichhorn, 
Luden,  Loo,  and  Mailer. 

"  We  have  had,  too,  within  the  last  two  years,  another  most 
interesting  work,  a  life  of  Innocent  III.,  one  of  the  most  abused 
in  the  line  of  papal  succession,  written  by  Hurter,  a  clergyman 
of  the  Protestant  church  of  Germany.  He  again  has  coolly  ex 
aminecl  all  the  allegations  which  have  been  brought  against 
him ;  and  has  based  his  studies  entirely  on  the  monuments  of 
the  age  ;  and  the  conclusion  to  which  he  comes  is,  that  not  only 
is  his  character  beyond  reproach,  but  that  it  is  an  object  of  un- 
qualified admiration.  And  to  give  you  some  idea  of  the  feelings 
of  this  work,  I  will  read  you  two  extracts  applicable  to  my  sub- 
ject in  general.  Thus  writes  our  author :  l  Such  an  immediate 
instrument  in  the  hands  of  God,  for  securing  the  highest  wea) 
of  the  community,  must  the  Christian  of  these  times,  the  eccle 
siastic,  and  still  more,  he  who  stood  nearest  to  the  centre  of  the 
church,  have  considered  him  who  was  its  head.  Every  worldly 
dignity  works  only  for  the  good  of  an  earthly  life,  for  a  passing 
object ;  the  church  alone  for  the  salvation  of  all  men,  for  an  ob- 
ject of  endless  duration.  If  worldly  power  is  from  God,  it  is 
not  so  in  the  sense,  and  in  the  measure,  and  in  the  defmitiveness 
in  which  the  highest  spiritual  power  of  those  ages  was ;  whose 
origin,  development,  extent,  and  influence,  (independently  of  all 
dogmatical  formulas,)  form  the  most  remarkable  appearance  in 
the  world's  history.' 

"  In  another  passage  he  thus  speaks :  *  Let  us  look  forward 
and  backward  from  any  period  upon  the  times,  and  see  how 
the  institution  of  the  Papacy  has  outlasted  all  the  other  institu- 
tions Of  Europe ;  how  it  has  seen  all  other  states  rise  and  perish ; 
how,  in  the  endless  changes  of  human  power,  it  alone  invariably 
has  preserved  and  maintained  the  same  spirit ;  can  we  be  sur- 
prised, if  many  look  upon  it  as  the  rock  which  raises  itself  un- 
shaken above  the  stormy  waves  of  time?  '" 


374  CHAKGK8    AGAINST    CERTAIN    POPES. 

I  am  satisfied  myself,  that  the  vices  of  those  ages  have  been 
much  exaggerated.  I  admit  most  cheerfully  that  I  am  but  par- 
tially acquainted  with  the  history  of  those  times.  My  pursuits 
have  led  me  into  other  fields  of  inquiry.  But  my  opinion  is 
formed  upon  general  principles — upon  my  ideas  of  the  nature 
of  men  and  things.  If  the  literature  of  an  age  happens  to  be  in- 
ferior, the  scholar  turns  from  it  with  indifference,  if  not  with 
disgust.  In  such  case  few,  if  any,  will  feel  any  interest  in  doing 
justice  even  to  the  solid  virtues  and  common  sense  of  that  age. 
Their  faults  are  narrated  in  harsh  and  severe  terms,  while  their 
virtues  are  not  recorded  in  the  glowing  pages  of  polished  eulo- 
gy. I  like  to  read  the  correspondence  of  men — public  and  pri- 
vate— when  I  wish  to  understand  their  characters.  In  all  my 
experience — in  all  my  travels  in  different  modes — in  cities — at 
taverns — and  in  all  other  positions,  the  most  just  and  certain 
mode  I  could  ever  adopt  to  find  out  the  true  character  of  peo- 
ple, was  to  let  them  tell  their  own  story — to  state  their  own 
principles,  and  then  to  watch,  calmly  and  impartially,  the  gen- 
eral drift  and  spirit  of  the  narrative.  Men  will  generally  talk 
of  that  which  they  love  most.  I  never  met  an  unprincipled 
man,  that  I  know  of,  except  in  one  solitary  instance,  that  did 
not  unduly  elevate  talent  above  integrity.  Such  men  invariably 
put  forth  some  vicious  principle,  or  applaud  some  smart,  but 
dishonest  trick,  in  some  one  else.  An  unprincipled  man,  one 
who  is  so  habitually,  will  never  fail  to  show  it  in  his  own  state- 
ments. There  will  be  a  vein  of  vicious  principle  found  some- 
where in  his  discourse.  A  man  must  be  a  supreme  adept  at 
hypocrisy  that  can  wear  the  mask  always.  He  must  be  remark- 
able for  his  patience  and  perseverance. 

In  estimating  the  character  and  conduct  of  the  Popes  of  the 
middle  ages,  we  must  place  ourselves  back  in  the  circumstances 
that  then  existed — we  must  enter  into  the  spirit  of  those  times, 
and  take  things  as  we  find  them.  We  must  remember  that 
men,  nations,  and  ages  must  be  judged  with  reference  to  their 
opportunities  and  positions.  The  middle  ages  succeeded  the 
fall  of  the  Roman  Empire  in  the  West,  and  the  terrible  scourge 
of  the  Saracens  in  the  East  and  South.  Literature,  science,  and 
arts  had  suffered  extensively  by  these  devastations.  It  was  em 
phatically  the  period  of  misfortune.  The  very  fact  that  nearly 


CHARGES    AGAINST   CERTAIN    POPES.  375 

all  of  the  bad  Popes  existed  at  one  period  in  this  long  line  of 
succession,  is,  of  itself,  almost  conclusive  proof,  that  the  circum- 
stances of  the  times  mainly  produced  these  sad  delinquencies. 
Making  then  every  fair  allowance,  there  seems  to  be  no  doubt! 
that  some  twenty  out  of  near  two  hundred  and  sixty  Popes 
have  been  wicked  men.  And  their  excesses  have  been  freely 
condemned  by  Catholics,  whose  histories  record  these  vices. 
These  Popes  followed  each  other  by  suecession.  That  in  a  long 
course  of  ages,  instances  of  personal  misconduct  would  occur 
even  among  the  Popes,  must  be  expected. 

What  then  is  the  legitimate  effect  of  these  scandals  upon  the 
Catholic  system  ?  Are  they  abuses,  or  are  they  the  natural  re- 
sult of  the  system  ?  Do  they  prove  that  the  Papacy  never  ex- 
isted ?  that  it  could  be  thus  forfeited  ?  or  that  the  misconduct 
of  a  few  individuals,  at  intervals  in  the  long  line  of  her  history, 
has  destroyed  the  true  Church  ? 

In  considering  this  matter,  we  must  distinguish  between  per- 
sonal and  official  misconduct.  In  personal  matters,  men  act  for 
themselves — in  official  matters,  for  others.  In  one  case  they  ex- 
ercise personal  and  inherent  natural  rights — in  the  other  they 
are  clothed  with  delegated  powers.  To  confound  these,  is  to 
confound  the  most  manifest  distinctions — distinctions  which  must 
exist  where  government  exists. 

As  I  have  elsewhere  stated,  I  never  understood  that  Christ 
had  guaranteed  the  personal  virtue  even  of  His  apostles.  He 
left  the  personal  free  agency  of  all  men  untouched.  But  when 
men  act  as  His  agents,  and  for  Him,  then  I  understand  that  He 
did  guaranty  their  official  acts.  Thus,  Peter  could  personally 
sin,  and  so  could  Paul,  but  they  never  could  give  false  testimony. 
A  true  prophet  cannot  lie.  He  is  not  permitted  to  do  so.  And 
it  is  conceded  as  a  plain  principle  of  law,  that  the  agent,  from 
the  nature  of  the  relation,  is  not  free  in  reference  to  the  business 
of  his  principal,  except  when  discretion  is  given.  Christ  did  not 
leave  the  apostles  any  discretion.  They  were  bound  to  testify 
and  teach  the  whole  truth,  and  only  the  truth.  So,  if  Christ 
guaranteed  the  integrity  of  the  Church,  then  her  official  acts 
must  be  right,  as  to  all  matters  within  the  guaranty.* 

*  It  so  happened  that  onr  Lord  and  St.  Paul  were  placed  in  almost  the  same 
situation.  Paul  had  the  advantage  of  his  Master's  previous  example  before  him ; 


3T6  CHARGES    AGAINST    CERTAIN    POPES. 

The  Popes,  like  all  men  at  the  head  of  great  institutions, 
were  placed  in  a  position  where  they  had  every  incentive  to  do 
good,  and  yet  were  exposed  to  very  trying  temptations.  Many 
persons  who  held  the  high-priesthood  under  the  Jewish  dispen- 
sation disgraced  the  position,  from  Heli  to  Caiaphas,  who  was 
a  wicked  man,  and  a  good  high-priest,  as  Mr.  Campbell  says. 
Aaron  made  the  golden  calf.  But  all  these  sad  instances  of  hu- 
man infirmity  did  not  destroy  the  office,  nor  forfeit  the  existence 
of  the  institution.  Is  the  Church  then  responsible  for  the  per- 
sonal vices  of  these  Popes  ?  Could  the  Church  take  away  their 
free  agency,  and  prevent  their  sins  ? 

But  when  we  come  to  take  a  view  of  the  general  official  con- 
duct  of  these  Popes,  we  find  one  of  the  most  beautiful  proofs  of 
the  invincible  stability  of  the  Church.  It  is  indisputable,  and 
now  conceded  by  many,  if  not  by  most  Protestant  writers,  that 
the  alleged  errors  of  the  Roman  Church  were  introduced  long 
before  the  main  portions  of  these  disorders  occurred,  if  they 
were  not  in  the  Church  at  the  beginning.  It  is  true,  some  at- 
tempts are  still  made  by  particular  controvertists  to  prove  that 
at  least  a  portion  of  them  originated  after  these  scandals  com- 
menced. But  any  one  can  easily  see  that  this  is  untrue,  by  a 
very  slight  examination  of  the  proofs.  It  is  also  true,  that  in 
the  pontificates  of  some  of  these  Popes,  Christianity  was  extend- 
ed by  their  exertions  into  several  savage  countries.  In  fact, 
some  of  the  greatest  conquests  made  to  religion  occurred  at 
those  periods.  There  were  no  new  heresies  introduced — there 
was  no  cardinal  doctrine  of  faith  lost.  This  showed  unity — this 
showed  diligence — this  showed  integrity  as  to  faith. 

How  then  can  we  account  for  these  great  and  illustrious  re- 

and  it  is  interesting  to  see  how  differently  they  acted.  When  our  Lord  was  he- 
fore  Ananias,  "  one  of  the  officers  struck  him  with  the  palm  of  his  hand,  saying. 
Answerest  thou  the  High  Priest  so  ?  "  "  Jesus  answered  him,  If  I  have  spoken 
evil,  bear  witness  of  the  evil :  hut  if  well,  why  smitest  thou  me  ?  "  This  was  the 
forgiving  answer  of  a  God.  But  when  Paul  was  smitten  hy  the  order  of  the  same 
High  Priest,  he  indignantly  exclaimed :  "  God  shall  smite  thee,  thou  whited 
wall."  And  this  was  the  indignant  language  of  a  man.  And  is  not  this  differ- 
ence a  most  beautiful  evidence  of  the  truth  of  Christianity  ?  Could  this  difference 
in  the  conduct  of  our  Lord  and  St.  Paul,  under  circumstances  so  similar,  have 
been  the  result  of  a  forged  narrative  ?  Would  such  a  circumstance  have  been 
thought  of?  And  yet  is  not  the  difference  in  the  conduct  of  the  two  very  great  ? 


CHARGES    AGAINST   CEKTAIN   POPES.  377 

sulta,  out  upon  the  hypothesis  that  the  faith  of  the  Church  \vas 
protected  by  Christ,  as  He  had  promised?  Looking  to  the  age — 
the  times — the  circumstances  when  these  scandals  existed,  and 
what  other  Church  could  have  rode  out  the  terrible  storm  ? 
Could  Protestantism  (which  has  only  existed  for  about  three 
centuries,  and  that  in  the  most  fortunate  and  enlightened  period 
of  the  world,  and  has  yet  severed  and  divided  into  so  many  frag- 
ments) have  withstood  this  trial  ? 

And  when  we  look  into  the  matter  carefully,  there  is  some- 
thing wonderful  in  this  history.  For  the  Catholic  says  to  him- 
self: "  As  the  old  Church  withstood  all  this,  what  can  she  not 
withstand  ?  Is  she  not  invincible  under  circumstances  that  have 
crushed  all  existing  institutions  ?  They  died  out  like  falling 
stars — she  shone  on.  They  were — she  was,  and  is,  and  is  to  be. 
It  was  the  glory  of  our  Lord  to  stand  alone.  So  it  is  with  His 
Church." 

And  the  more  the  opposers  of  the  Church  urge  these  disor- 
ders, the  more  they  strengthen  the  conviction  in  the  mind  of 
the  Catholic,  that  it  is  impossible  for  the  Old  Church  to  have 
sustained  herself  under  such  untoward  circumstances,  without 
the  help  of  Christ.  What  Christ  has  instituted,  men  cannot  de- 
stroy. They  have  power  over  the  works  of  their  own  hands, 
but  here  their  power  ends.  And  despite  of  the  desolation  of 
the  Goth  and  Vandal — the  ravages  of  the  invincible  Saracen — 
the  trials  and  evils  of  the  age — and  above  all,  the  personal  wick- 
edness of  some  of  her  own  Chief  Pastors,  the  Old  Church  lal- 
tered  not,  but  kept  the  faith,  preached  the  gospel  to  the  world, 
and  actually  extended  the  Master's  Kingdom.  She,  of  all  the 
institutions  of  the  world,  has  lived  unscathed  through  that  day. 
Amidst  all  the  ruin,  she  alone  held  up  her  head. 

"  As  some  tall  cliff,  that  lifts  its  awful  form, 
Swells  from  the  vale,  and  midway  leaves  the  storm, 
Though  round  its  hreast  the  rolling  clouds  are  spread, 
Eternal  sunshine  settles  on  its  head." 

And  in  my  reflections  upon  this  subject,  I  could  not  but  con- 
sider this  triumph  of  the  Church,  under  such  circumstances,  as 
one  of  the  most  forcible  and  beautiful  proofs  of  the  truth  of 
Christianity.  It  did  show  that  the  Lord  Jesus  was  to  be  trust- 


378  CHARGES    AGAINST   CERTAIN   POPES. 

ed.  That  even  the  personal  misconduct  of  her  own  children— 
of  her  own  chief  officer,  could  not  ruin  the  work  of  Christ.  Ha 
had  said  it  should  be  so,  and  it  was  so. 

And  I  could  not  but  wish  to  put  these  questions  to  those 
who  exaggerate  these  personal  sins  of  the  Popes :  "  My  friends, 
the  more  you  overdo  these  allegations,  the  more  difficult,  I  ap 
prehend,  you  make  your  own  case.  You  say,  in  substance,  that 
there  was  no  virtue  in  the  Papacy.  Where,  then,  was  that  won- 
derful virtue  that  saved  the  Church  ?  Under  your  supposed 
state  of  case,  do  give  us  some  good  reason  for  the  wonderful 
preservation  of  the  Church.  There  was  evidently  great  vitality 
and  virtue  somewhere.  Your  alleged  true  Church  had  to  change 
its  faith  and  features  very  often  to  live  at  all ;  and  in  these  try- 
ing times,  was  not  on  the  field  of  battle.  Or  if  so,  did  nothing. 
Was  it  '  buried  beneath  the  darkness  of  those  ages,'  as  Wad- 
dington  says  ?  If  so,  why  did  not  that  darkness  overwhelm  the 
Catholic  Church  ?  Was  the  Protestant  true  Church  alone  un- 
able to  hold  up  her  head  in  the  stern  hour  of  trial,  while  the  al- 
leged false  Church  did  all  the  good  that  was  done  ?  And  what 
Church  did  save  Europe  from  barbarism  ?  What  Church  saved 
Christianity,  if  not  the  Catholic  ?  You  have  certainly  much 
fault  to  find  with  her.  But  who  won  the  victory  over  the  sav- 
age and  the  Saracen,  but  her  ?  In  short,  who  did  any  thing  for 
learning,  virtue,  civilization,  and  religion  in  those  most  perilous 
times,  but  her  ?  *  Her  children  had  many  vices,  no  doubt,  but 

*  Speaking  of  those  times,  Mr.  Wheaton  says  : 

"  The  influence  of  the  Papal  authority,  though  sometimes  abused,  was  then 
felt  as  a  blessing  to  mankind  :  it  rescued  Europe  from  total  barbarism  ;  it  afford- 
ed the  only  asylum  and  shelter  from  feudal  oppression."  (Wheaton'*  History  of 
the  Laws  of  Nations,  33.) 

And  the  Rev.  John  Lord,  in  his  introductory  essay  to  the  Chronicles  of  Sh 
John  Froissart,  says : 

"  Moreover,  the  Papacy  was  a  great  central  power,  needed  to  control  the  princes 
of  Europe,  and  settle  the  difficulties  which  arose  between  them.  The  Popes, 
whatever  may  have  been  their  personal  character,  were  conservators  of  the  peace. 
They  preserved  unity  amid  anarchy,  and  restrained  the  impulses  of  passionate 
kings.  Again,  the  Papacy,  in  the  best  ages,  is  thought  by  many  profound  histo- 
rians to  have  been  democratic  in  its  sympathies.  It  guarded  the  interests  of  the 
people  :  it  preserved  them  from  the  violence  of  their  oppressors  :  it  furnished 
a  retreat,  in  monasteries,  for  the  contemplative,  the  suffering,  the  afflicted,  and 


CHARGES    AGAINST   CERTAIN    Pol'l'S.  379 

their  trials  were  such  as  you  have  never  witnessed.  There  are 
many  brave  men,  who  have  much  theoretic,  but  very  little  actual 
blood  to  shed  upon  the  battle-field,  who  nevertheless  complain 
loudly  of  the  alleged  errors  of  those  who  won  the  victory.  Had 
they  but  been  there,  they  could  have  done  much  better.  But 
they  were  not  there  ;  and  had  they  been  there,  the  difficulties 
might  have  been  much  greater  than  they  appear  in  the  distance. 
Men  are  generally  brave  at  a  safe  distance,  and  generally  virtu- 
ous, in  the  absence  of  temptation.  It  is  easy  to  find  fault.  The 
less  we  know  of  a  matter,  the  more  fault  we  can  find,  in  many 
cases.  You  have  lived  in  the  most  favored  age  of  the  world, 
after  the  great  art  of  printing  was  invented  in  1444,  and  Amer- 
ica discovered  in  1492,  and  the  consequent  revival  of  litera- 
ture, and  the  arts,  and  the  extension  of  commerce ;  and  you 
have  still  committed  many  grievous  errors.  True,  you  can  boast 
of  the  number  of  your  small  and  diversified  Churches,  as  the  fox 
did  of  her  numerous  progeny,  while  the  Catholic  theory  can 
only  boast  of  one  ;  but  that  is  a  lion." 

§  4.   Could  these  disorders  destroy  the  office  of  Pope  ? 

In  reference  to  the  effect  of  these  disorders  of  the  Popes, 
Mr.  Campbell  has  a  summary  position  as  follows : 

"3.  That  Christ  gave  no  law  of  succession. 

"  4.  That  if  he  had,  that  succession  has  been  destroyed  by  a 
long  continuance  of  the  greatest  monsters  of  crime  that  ever 
lived,  and  by  cabals,  intrigues,  violence,  envy,  lust,  and  schisms, 
so  that  no  man  can  believe  that  one  drop  of  apostolic  grace 
is  either  in  the  person  or  office  of  Gregory  XVI.,  the  present 
nominal  incumbent  of  Peter's  chair."  (Debate  C.  &  P.,  139.) 

It  will  be  seen  that  this  language  is  sufficiently  confident  and 
strong,  to  sustain  any  sustainable  position.  But  with  deference 

the  poor.     The  monks  and  nuns  were  taught,  by  their  quiet  and  industrious  Ufa 

that 

'  There  exists 

An  higher  than  the  warrior's  excellence  : 
That  vast  and  sudden  deeds  of  violence, 
Adventures  wild,  and  wonders  of  the  moment, 
These  are  not  they  which  generate 
The  calm,  and  blissful,  and  enduring  mighty.' " 


380  CHARGES    AGAINST   CERTAIN    POPES. 

to  the  logic  and  opinion  of  the  learned  debater,  there  are  some 
reasons  that  seem  to  render  doubtful  the  entire  conclusivenesa 
of  his  position.  As  to  the  position  marked  3,  I  have  already 
spoken  of  it.  It  was  only  given  to  make  clear  the  other  desig- 
nated as  4. 

The  essence  of  this  bold  assumption  is,  that  an  individual 
officer  could  not  only  forfeit  his  right  to  the  office,  by  his  own 
misconduct,  but  he  could  go  further,  and  destroy  the  office  itself. 
In  other  words,  the  office  created  by  Christ — His  own  work — 
could  be  destroyed  by  the  acts  of  individuals.  This  is  a  star- 
tling proposition,  and  leaves  all  future  generations  at  the  mercy 
of  those  which  precede  it.  Under  this  theory,  I  cannot  under- 
stand how  Christ  could  be  a  Divine  Lawgiver,  when  He  created 
so  poor  an  institution  as  to  be  within  the  power  of  men. 

I  had  supposed  that  the  continued  existence  of  the  Church, 
with  all  the  offices  created  by  Christ,  was  dependent  upon  Sis 
Witt,  and  not  upon  the  personal  virtues  or  vices  of  individuals. 
It  may  be,  that  though  our  Lord  did  promise  to  protect  the 
Church  against  the  gates  of  hell,  He  did  not  mean  to  bind  Him- 
self to  protect  her  against  the  gates  of  men.  I  had  thought 
that  both  the  creation  of  the  office  of  Pope,  and  the  consequent 
continuance  of  the  same,  depended  upon  the  will  of  the  Founder 
of  the  institution,  and  not  upon  the  will  of  men. 

I  am  aware  that  inferior  corporations,  which  are  but  the 
creatures  of  statutory  enactments,  may  forfeit  their  charters  by 
nonuser  or  misuser ;  because  such  is  a  part  of  the  law  of  their 
creation.  The  misuser  is  the  act  of  the  controlling  majority  of 
the  stockholders,  and  is,  therefore,  the  act  of  all. 

But  this  doctrine  cannot  apply  to  governments.  Political 
governments  may  be  changed  at  the  pleasure  of  the  founders ; 
but  the  act  of  making  such  change  is  the  act  of  the  sovereign 
power.  If  it  should  happen  that  the  President  should  commit 
treason,  this  would  only  forfeit  his  right  to  fill  the  office,  but 
the  office  itself  would  remain  unimpaired.  The  office  was  not 
created  by  him — was  not  his  work — was  made  by  the  Nation, 
and  the  Nation  alone  can  unmake  or  destroy.  If  twenty  Presi- 
dents in  succession  were  to  commit  all  the  crimes  possible,  the 
office  would  still  remain.  The  People  might  be  induced  to 


CHARGES    AGAINST   CEKTAIN    TOPES.  381 

change  the  form  of  the  government,  but  such  change  would  be 
their  act,  not  the  act  of  these  Presidents. 

And  is  it  not  so  with  the  Church  ?  The  Church  is  not  an 
inferior  corporation,  but  a  supreme  government.  Christ  is  the 
head  and  founder  of  this  kingdom,  with  subordinate  officers 
under  Him.  These  offices  were  created  by  His  act,  and  cannot 
be  destroyed  by  the  vices  of  subordinates.  The  office  of  Pope, 
if  established  at  all,  was  created  for  some  great  and  beneficial 
purpose.  The  Christians  of  all  ages  are  equally  entitled  to 
these  benefits,  as  subjects  of  the  kingdom.  They  cannot  be  de- 
prived of  them  by  the  personal  vices  of  preceding  Popes.  It 
would  be  unjust  that  they  should.  If  Christ  had  been  a  mere 
fallible  lawgiver,  and  had  made  a  mistake  in  creating  the  office, 
He  might  be  induced  to  abolish  it ;  but  having  had  an  eye,  as 
Mr.  C.  justly  says,  to  all  the  future  in  all  He  did,  such  a  suppo- 
sition cannot  be  indulged. 

And  the  idea  that  a  perpetual  office,  created  by  Christ  Him- 
self, in  His  own  Church,  against  which  the  gates  of  hell  shall 
never  prevail,  could  be  abolished  by  the  vices  of  individual  in- 
cumbents, is  a  supposition  too  hard  for  me  to  understand.  If 
that  office  could  be  abolished  by  the  vices  of  incumbents,  every 
other  office  in  the  Church  could  be  destroyed  in  the  same  way, 
and  unless  re-established  by  Christ,  the  Church  itself  must  fail, 
as  no  institution  can  exist  without  offices.  And  if  the  Church 
is  to  be  considered  as  an  inferior  corporation,  and  the  office  of 
Pope  could  be  destroyed,  then  the  whole  corporation  must 
fall.  For  such  inferior  corporations,  by  nonuser  or  misuser,  do 
not  forfeit  the  right  to  a  particular  office,  but  they  forfeit 
their  entire  existence.  The  law  would  hardly  mutilate  and 
cripple  the  corporation,  and  still  expect  it,  after  thus  being 
maimed,  to  perform  the  functions  it  failed  to  do,  when  whole 
and  entire. 

In  every  view  in  which  this  summary  position  may  be 
considered,  it  certainly  is  an  extreme  assumption.  That 
Christ  should  organize  an  institution  and  create  offices  so  per- 
fectly defective  that  they  may  be  entirely  abrogated  by  in- 
dividuals, is  a  position,  I  apprehend,  too  sophistical  to  be  enter- 
tamed. 

The  whole  force  of  the  argument  against  the  existence  of 


382  CHARGES    AGAINST   CERTAIN    POPES. 

the  Papacy,  upon  the  ground  of  the  personal  delinquencies  of 
individual  Popes,  at  intervals  in  the  long  line  of  succession,  is 
based  upon  the  essential  error  of  confounding  individual  acts 
with  official  duties.  It  is  true,  that  a  man  may  be  a  good 
officer,  and  a  bad  man.  And  it  is  also  conceded,  that  a  bad 
man  is  not  so  apt  to  be  a  good  officer,  as  a  good  man.  Official 
errors  may  be  wilful,  or  mistaken.  When  mistaken,  they  are 
just  as  apt  to  be  the  act  of  a  good  as  a  bad  man. 

This  distinction  between  personal  and  official  conduct,  I  find 
admitted  by  most  Protestant  writers  on  some  occasions,  and 
then  practically  denied  by  the  same  individual  on  others.  We 
have  seen  the  admissions  of  Mr.  Campbell  and  Mr.  Rice,  when 
arguing  against  each  other.  But  when  Mr.  C.  was  debating 
with  Bishop  Purcell,  he  had  not  then  discovered  that  Caiaphas 
could  be  a  very  good  high-priest,  though  a  bad  man.  Time 
improved  his  views. 

This  confusion  of  personal  with  official  capacity,  is  supported 
by  plausible  cases,  that  are  put  forth  with  apparent  earnestness, 
and  seem  to  be  believed  by  those  who  use  them.  If  not  be- 
lieved, then  they  were  guilty  of  fraud,  in  so  using  them.  Cer- 
tainly an  honest  theologian  will  not  knowingly  use  delusive  ar- 
guments. He  may  be  mistaken.  He  could  not  be  wilfully 
guilty. 

The  case  usually  put,  I  find  used  by  Mr.  Breckenridge,  who 
seems  to  have  been  in  earnest,  as  it  was  written,  not  spoken,  by 
him.  He  says : 

"  The  moral  of 4  bad  man  and  good  Pope  '  reminds  us  of  the 
Archbishop  (he  was  also  a  prince)  who  swore  profanely  in  the 
presence  of  a  peasant;  the  peasant  exclaimed,  with  surprise, 
4  Archbishop,  do  you  swear  ? '  '  No,'  he  replied,  4 1  swear  as  a 
prince.'  '  Then,'  said  the  peasant,  '  when  Satan  comes  for  the 
prince,  what  will  become  of  the  Archbishop?'"  (Con.  H.  & 
B.,  65.) 

This  supposititious  case  is  an  instance  of  the  mere  play  upon 
words.  By  a  very  artful  arrangement,  the  most  clear  and  mani- 
fest distinctions  are  confounded.  The  swearing  was  tlu  act  of 
the  individual ;  and  however  often  Satan  might  come  for  the  per- 
son called  Archbishop,  he  would  never  get  him  until  he  died  ; 


CHARGES    AGAINST   CERTAIN   POPES.  333 

and  then,  I  apprehend,  he  would  leave  the  office  behind  him ; 
and  being  no  longer  Archbishop,  Satan  would  only  get  the  in- 
dividual, after  all. 

When  an  officer  fails  to  use  his  legitimate  powers  in  proper 
cases,  or  when  he  abuses  or  perverts  them,  or  usurps  powers 
not  belonging  to  the  office,  then  he  is  a  bad  officer.  His  per- 
sonal sins  may  injure  his  official  usefulness  indirectly,  by  reason 
of  the  destruction  of  confidence  in  his  official  conduct.  But  in 
the  contemplation  of  the  theory  they  are  distinct,  and  are  so,  in 
point  of  fact,  in  many  cases.  Official  delinquency  does  not  ne- 
cessarily, though  very  apt  to,  follow  from  personal  vices.  The 
reason  of  this  is  plain.  Men  have  different  views  of  things,  and 
there  is  a  difference  in  criminality  in  different  acts.  A  man  may 
commit  one  class,  and  not  the  other.  All  men  commit  some 
sins ;  and  yet  there  are  sins  that  few  will  commit.  A  man  may 
be  guilty  of  many  personal  sins,  and  yet  regard  his  official  obli- 
gations as  sacred,  because  he  considers  that  his  personal  vices 
affect  himself  mostly,  while  his  official  misconduct  would  affect 
others.  And  when  we  assume  that  the  official  acts  of  a  wicked 
clergyman  are  void,  we  certainly  go  beyond  the  truth.  I  knew 
a  most  eminent  preacher,  who  baptized  many  persons  into  Mr. 
C.'s  church,  who  has  fallen  away  in  California,  giving  pretty 
conclusive  evidence  that  he  never  was  sincere.  Was  the 
baptism  administered  by  him  void,  in  the  contemplation 
of  Mr.  Campbell's  theory  ?  Or  was  the  truth  proclaimed 
by  him,  void,  because  falling  from  his  lips  ?  Is  the  true  coin 
vitiated,  simply  because  it  has  passed  through  the  hands  of  a 
rogue  ? 

This  supposititious  case  is  about  as  plausible,  but  strictly  as 
irrelevant,  as  the  argument  by  which  the  slave  discomfited  his 
master.  The  slave  was  a  Baptist,  and  the  master  a  Methodist. 
;'  Massa,  do  you  read  de  Scriptur  ?"  "  Yes  I  do,  Jim."  "Den 
you  read  of  John  de  Baptist  ?  "  "  Yes  I  do."  "  But  do  you 
read  of  John  de  Methodist  ?  "  The  master  was  silent. 

I  found  in  Protestant  works  many  arguments  of  a  similar 
character.  To  the  important  question,  "Where  was  your 
Church  before  the  days  of  Luther  ? "  it  has  been  flippantly 
asked  in  reply,  "  Where  were  you  before  I  washed  your  face  ?  " 

This  was  in  character  with  the  reply  of  a  man  who  waa 


384:  CHARGES    AGAINST   CERTAIN   POPES. 

mildly  reproved  by  a  sincere  Baptist  minister  for  profane  swear- 
ing.  "  My  dear  sir,  there  is  no  difference  between  us.  I  swear, 
and  mean  no  harm  by  it ;  and  you  pray,  and  mean  no  good  by 
it."  Of  course,  the  minister  had  no  reply  to  make  to  such  a 
false  assumption  of  fact. 


CHAPTER  X. 

WHAT  HAVE  BEEN  THE  EFFECTS  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  SYS- 
TEM, IN  THOSE  MEMBERS  WHO  HAVE  FAITHFULLY 
REDUCED  ITS  TEACHINGS  TO  PRACTICE? 

§  1.  The  saints  have  been  found  in  the  Catholic  Church. 

IN  estimating  the  effects  of  any  system  of  religion,  the  only 
fair  and  just  method  would  seem  to  be,  to  take  those  who  hum- 
bly receive,  and  faithfully  reduce  to  practice,  its  faith  and  mor- 
als, in  their  true  spirit,  as  taught  by  the  Church  herself.  It  is 
surely  true,  that  individuals,  under  all  systems,  will  err  and  come 
short  of  their  duty.  But  after  making  a  fair  allowance  for  these 
cases,  which  no  system  can  prevent,  then  take  the  best  members 
of  each  communion,  and  see  which  has  produced  the  greater 
number  of  saints,  those  noble  and  heroic  souls,  whose  piety 
most  resembles  the  spirit  and  acts  of  the  early  Church. 

What  was  Christianity  in  the  beginning  ?  What  works — 
what  sacrifices  were  then  required  of  Christians?  How  did 
they  bear  themselves  to  the  Church,  to  each  other,  and  to  the 
world  ?  And  was  not  Christianity  intended  as  an  unchangeable 
system?  As  it  was  in  the  beginning,  should  it  be  now,  hence- 
forward and  forever  ?  Is  man  the  same — still  an  inhabitant  of 
the  same  world — still  bound  to  die — and  still  aspiring  to  the 
same  heaven  ?  If  so,  Christianity  must  be  still  the  same — re- 
quiring the  same  humility — the  same  devotion — the  same  pa- 
tience— the  same  charity. 

In  considering  this  subject,  there  is  a  very  remarkable  fact, 
that  all  the  saints  who  are  recorded  as  such  in  the  Calendar  of 
34 


386  EFI-T.CT3    OF    THE    CATHOLIC    SYSTEM. 

the  Church  of  England,  with  one  exception,  and  in  whose  name 
their  churches  are  dedicated,  lived  and  died  strict  members  of 
the  Catholic  Church,  and  earnestly  attached  to  her  doctrines 
and  discipline.  "  For  example,"  says  Dr.  Milner,  "  in  this  cal- 
endar we  meet  with  a  Pope  Gregory,  March  12th,  the  zealous 
assertor  of  the  Papal  Supremacy,  and  other  Catholic  doctrines ; 
a  St.  Benedict,  March  21,  the  Patriarch  of  the  Western  Monks 
and  ISTuns  ;  a  St.  Dunstan,  May  19,  the  vindicator  of  clerical  cel- 
ibacy ;  a  St.  Augustine,  Of  Canterbury,  May  26,  the  introducer 
of  the  whole  system  of  Catholicity  in  England  ;  and  a  venerable 
Bede,  May  27,  the  witness  of  this  important  fact.  It  is  sufficient 
to  mention  the  names  of  other  Catholic  saints,  for  example, 
David,  Chad,  Edward,  Richard,  Elphege,  Martin,  Swithun, 
Giles,  Lambert,  Leonard,  Hugh,  Etheldreda,  Remigius,  and  Ed- 
mund ;  all  of  which  are  inserted  in  the  Calendar,  and  give  names 
to  some  of  the  other  churches  of  the  establishment.  Besides 
these,  there  are  many  of  our  other  saints  whom  all  learned  and 
candid  Protestants  unequivocally  admit  to  have  been  such,  for 
the  extraordinary  purity  and  sanctity  of  their  lives.  Even  Luther 
acknowledges  St.  Anthony,  St.  Bernard,  St.  Dominic,  St.  Fran- 
cis, St.  Boneventure,  &c.,  to  have  been  saints,  though  avowed 
Catholics,  and  defenders  of  the  Catholic  Church  against  the  her 
etics  and  schismatics  of  their  times.  But  independently  of  this 
and  of  every  other  testimony,  it  is  certain  that  the  supernatural 
virtues  and  heroical  sanctity  of  a  countless  number  of  holy  per- 
sonages of  different  countries,  ranks,  professions,  and  sexes,  have 
illustrated  the  Catholic  Church,  in  every  age,  with  an  effulgence 
which  cannot  be  disputed  or  withstood.  Your  friends,  I  dare 
say,  are  not  much  acquainted  with  the  histories  of  these  bright- 
est ornaments  of  Christianity ;  let  me  then  invite  them  to  peruse 
them,  not  in  the  legends  of  obsolete  writers,  but  in  a  work 
which,  for  its  various  learning  and  luminous  criticism,  was  com- 
mended even  by  the  infidel  Gibbon ;  I  mean  The  Lives  of  Saints, 
in  twelve  octavo  volumes,  written  by  the  late  Rev.  Alban  But- 
ler, President  of  St.  Omer's  College.  Protestants  are  accus- 
tomed to  paint,  in  the  most  frightful  colors,  the  alleged  deprav- 
ity of  the  Church  when  Luther  erected  his  standard,  in  order 
to  justify  him  and  their  followers,  in  their  defection  from  it.  But 
to  form  a  right  judgment  in  this  case,  let  them  read  the  works 


EFFECTS    OF   THE   CATHOLIC    SYSTEM.  387 

of  the  contemporary  writers,  an  a  Kempis,  a  Grisan,  and  Anto- 
nius,  &c.,  or  let  them  peruse  the  lives  of  St.  Vincent  Ferrer,  St. 
Lawrence  Justinian,  St.  Francis  Paula,  St.  Philip  Neri,  St.  Caje- 
tan,  St.  Teresa,  St.  Francis  Xaverius,  and  of  those  other  saints 
who  illuminated  the  Church  about  the  period  in  question.  Or 
let  them,  from  the  very  accounts  of  Protestant  historians,  com- 
pare as  to  religion  and  morality,  Archbishop  Cranmer  with  his 
rival  bishop  Fisher  ;  Protector  Seymour  with  Chancellor  More;* 
Anne  Boleyn  with  Catharine  of  Arragon ;  Martin  Luther  and 
Calvin  with  Francis  Xaverius  and  Cardinal  Pole  ;  Beza  with  St. 
Francis  of  Sales  ;  Queen  Elizabeth  with  Mary  Queen  of  Scots ; 
these  contrasted  characters  having  more  or  less  relation  with 
each  other.  From  such  a  comparison,  I  have  no  sort  of  doubt 
what  the  decision  of  your  friends  will  be  concerning  them,  in 
point  of  their  respective  holiness."  (End  of  Con.,  Let.  xxi.)  f 

§  2.   Character  of  the  Reformers. 

It  is  not  my  purpose,  as  the  limits  of  my  work  would  not  al- 
low me,  to  enter  into  a  minute  and  full  investigation  of  the  char- 
acter of  the  principal  agents  in  bringing  about  the  so-called  Re- 
formation, in  point  of  that  holiness,  humility,  and  gentleness  re- 
quired by  Christianity.  I  can  only  refer  to  the  works  of  Dr. 
Milner  and  others,  who  have  treated  this  subject  at  large.  I 
gave  the  question  the  best  examination  that  I  could  do  under 
the  circumstances,  and  I  must  say,  that  the  result  was  the  con- 
viction in  my  own  mind,  that  the  Reformers  were  not  the  best 

*  In  reference  to  the  great  Sir  Thomas  More,  Thompson  has  these  beautiful 
and  just  lines : 

"  Like  Cato  firm,  like  Aristides  just, 
Like  rigid  Cincinnatus,  nobly  poor, 
A.  dauntless  soul,  erect,  who  smiled  on  death." 

f  The  only  one  of  the  Reformers  recorded  as  a  saint  in  the  calendar  of  the 
Church  of  England,  is  King  Charles  I.,  in  reference  to  whom  Dr.  Milner  says  : 

"  I  must  except  King  Charles  I.,  who  is  rubricated  as  a  martyr  on  January 
30 :  nevertheless,  it  is  confessed  that  he  was  far  from  possessing  either  the  purity 
of  a  saint,  or  the  constancy  of  a  martyr  ;  for  he  actually  gave  up  Episcopacy  and 
other  essentials  of  the  established  religion,  by  his  last  treaty  in  the  Isle  of  Wight." 
(Note  to  Let.  xxi.) 

His  name,  I  believe,  has,  by  a  late  command  of  the  Queen,  been  stricken 
from  the  calendar. 


388  EFFECTS    OF   THE   CATHOLIC    SYSTEM. 

models  of  Christian  virtue.  It  seemed  to  me  as.  an  eminently 
just  sentiment,  that  men  who  assumed  to  reform  the  entire 
Church  should  have  been  the  best  models  of  piety.  The  apostles 
were  so. 

But  I  could  not  find  in  the  lives,  conduct,  or  language  of  the 
early  Reformers,  any  prominent  and  continued  displays  of  thai 
humility  and  disregard  of  self,  which  surely  do  constitute  the  most 
conclusive  tests  of  personal  piety,  of  the  first  order.  I  was  much 
struck,  upon  my  first  examination,  with  the  remark  of  Dr.  Milner, 
that  we  had  not  the  same  reason  to  expect  the  same  amount  of 
personal  virtue  in  those  officers  who  follow  one  another  by  suc- 
cession as  we  had  in  Reformers.  The  account  given  by  the 
Duchess  of  York,  of  her  own  conversion,  is  one  of  the  most 
beautiful  and  simple  statements  I  have  anywhere  met,  and  made 
a  deep  impression  upon  my  mind  when  I  first  read  it.  It  bears 
upon  its  face  the  sure  marks  of  sincerity.  It  is  found  entire  in 
the  Duke  of  Brunswick's  Fifty  Reasons.  This  eminent  lady 
says,  among  other  things  :  "  And  first  I  do  protest,  in  the  pres- 
ence of  Almighty  God,  that  no  person,  man  or  woman,  directly 
or  indirectly,  ever  said  any  thing  to  me,  (since  I  came  out  of 
England,)  or  used  the  least  endeavor  to  make  me  change  my 
religion.  It  is  a  blessing  I  wholly  owe  to  Almighty  God  ;  and, 
I  hope,  the  hearing  of  a  prayer  I  daily  made  him,  ever  since  I 
was  in  France  and  Flanders.  Where,  seeing  much  of  the  de- 
votion of  Catholics,  (though  I  had  very  little  myself,)  I  made 
it  my  continual  request  to  Almighty  God,  that  if  I  was  not,  I 
might,  before  I  died,  be  in  the  TKUE  religion.  I  did  not  in  the 
least  doubt  but  that  I  was  so,  and  never  had  any  manner  of  scru- 
ple until  November  last,  when  I  read  a  book  called  'the  history 
of  the  Reformation,  by  Dr.  Heylen,'  which  I  had  heard  very 
much  commended,  and  had  been  told  if  ever  I  had  any  doubt  in 
my  religion,  that  would  settle  me.  Instead  of  which  I  found  it  the 
description  of  the  most  horrid  sacrileges  in  the  world  ;  and  could 
find  no  reason  why  he  left  the  church,  but  for  these,  the  most 
abominable  ones  that  were  ever  heard  of  among  Christians : 
First,  Henry  VIII.  renounces  the  Pope's  authority  because  he 
would  not  give  him  leave  to  part  with  his  wife,  and  marry  an- 
other in  her  lifetime.  Secondly,  Edward  VI.  was  a  child,  and 
was  governed  by.  his  uncle,  who  made  his  estate  out  of  church 


EFFECTS  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  SYSTEM.          389 

lands.  And  thirdly,  Queen  Elizabeth,  who,  not  being  lawful 
heiress  to  the  crown,  could  have  no  way  to  keep  it  but  by  re- 
nouncing a  church  that  could  never  suffer  so  unlawful  a  thing  to 
be  done  by  one  of  ner  children.  I  confess  I  cannot  think  that 
the  Holy  Ghost  could  ever  be  in  SUCH  counsels ;  and  it  is  very 
strange,  that  if  the  bishops  had  no  design  (as  they  say)  but  re- 
storing to  us  the  doctrine  of  the  primitive  church,  they  should 
never  think  upon  it  till  Henry  VIII.  made  the  breach,  upon  so 
unlawful  a  pretence."  This  lady  afterwards  says,  in  another 
place  :  "  After  this  I  spoke  severally  to  two  of  the  best  bishops 
we  have  in  England,  both  of  whom  told  me  there  were  many 
things  in  the  Roman  church  which  it  were  much  to  be  wished 
we  had  kept,  as  confession  which  was  no  doubt  commanded  by 
God.  That  praying  for  the  dead  was  one  of  the  ancient  things 
in  Christianity  :  that,  for  their  parts,  they  did  it  daily,  though 
they  would  not  own  it ;  and,  afterwards,  pressing  one  of  them 
very  much  upon  the  other  points,  he  told  me  that  if  he  had  been 
a  Catholic,  he  would  not  change  his  religion  ;  but  being  of  an- 
other church,  wherein  he  was  sure  were  all  things  necessary  to 
salvation,  he  thought  it  very  ill  to  give  scandal  by  leaving  that 
church  wherein  he  received  his  baptism."  The  prelates  referred 
to  were  Sheldon,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  and  Blandford, 
Bishop  of  Worcester. 

In  my  examination  of  the  history  of  the  Reformation,  I  be- 
came satisfied  that  if  we  exclude  from  our  consideration  the 
opinions  and  conclusions  of  the  most  candid  Protestant  histori- 
ans of  the  Reformation,  and  confine  our  attention  to  the  main 
and  undeniable  facts  they  themselves  record,  and  from  these 
facts  and  our  knowledge  of  men  and  things — their  motives, 
passions,  and  actions — we  will  be  forced  to  draw  these  conclu- 
sions: 1.  That  ambition,  love  of  wealth,  and  thirst  for  distinc 
tion,  had  more  to  do  with  that  event  than  religion  itself.  2.  That 
the  bishops  and  clergy  who  joined  the  Reformation  generally 
followed  the  lead  of  others,  and  very  seldom  went  before. 

If  we  look  to  England,  for  instance,  we  shall  find,  that  of 
all  the  English  bishops  in  the  time  of  Henry  VIII.,  the  ven- 
erable Fisher  was  the  only  one  who  loved  his  religion  well 
enough  to  die  for  it — that  even  when  the  clergy,  either  during 
his  reign  or  afterwards,  remonstrated  against  and  opposed  the 


390  EFFECTS    OF   THE    CATHOLIC    SYSTEM. 

proposed  changes,  their  scruples  were  almost  always  overcome, 
and  they  seldom  resisted  unto  death.  And  if  we  look  to  the 
continent,  the  same  general  result  will  follow.  Luther,  Melane- 
thon,  Bucer  and  others,  granted  the  Landgrave  of  Hesse  a  dis- 
pensation to  marry  another  wife,  while  he  did  not  even  put 
away  the  first.  But  when  Henry  VIII.,  who  had  been  a  zealous 
defender  of  the  Pope,  solicited  a  dispensation  to  put  away  his 
wife,  and  marry  another,  the  Pope  refused.  And  to  the  firm- 
ness of  the  Pontiff  in  resisting  such  a  demand,  is  the  success  of 
the  Reformation  in  England  mainly  to  be  attributed. 

But  if  we  also  take  in  connection  the  Catholic  historians  of 
that  day,  and  put  them  also,  side  by  side  with  the  Protestant, 
and  take  the  great  leading  facts  recorded  by  both,  or  sufficiently 
proved  by  one,  when  either  omitted  or  denied  by  the  other, 
there  can  be  but  little  doubt,  it  occurs  to  me,  as  to  the  conclu- 
sion that  must  follow. 

§  3.  The  Catholic  clergy  make  much  greater  sacrifices  than  the 
Protestant. 

But  I  did  not  confine  my  attention  alone  to  the  conduct  of 
both  parties  during  the  progress  of  the  Reformation,  in  estimating 
the  effects  of  the  two  systems.  I  looked  also  to  general  causes. 

I  found,  upon  examination,  that  the  Catholic  clergy  made 
far  greater  personal  and  worldly  sacrifices  than  the  Protestant. 
They  dedicate  themselves  to  the  ministry  exclusively — they  give 
up  all  temporal  hopes — they  debar  themselves  from  marriage — 
they  come  under  the  commands  of  superiors — they  go  to  the 
uttermost  bounds  of  the  earth  when  required — and  they  dedi- 
cate their  whole  lives  to  the  single  performance  of  their  duties. 
The  Catholic  clergy  look  upon  celibacy,  when  voluntary  and  for 
the  greater  glory  of  God,  as  a  higher  state  than  matrimony,  and 
that  this  is  revealed  in  Scripture.  For  Christ  did  say : 

"  Whosoever  shall  put  away  his  wife,  except  it  be  for  forni- 
cation, and  shall  marry  another,  committeth  adultery ;  and  who- 
so marrieth  her  that  is  put  away,  doth  commit  adultery.  His 
disciples  say  unto  him,  If  the  ca-se  of  the  man  be  so  with  his 
wife,  it  is  not  good  to  marry.  But  he  said  unto  them,  All 
men  cannot  receive  thig  saying  save  they  to  whom  it  is  given. 
For  there  are  some  eunuchs,  which  were  so  born  from  their 


EFFECTS    OF    THK    CATHOLIC    SYSTEM.  391 

mother's  womb  ;  and  there  are  some  eunuchs,  which  were  made 
eunuchs  of  men:  and  there  be  eunuchs,  which  have  made  them- 
selves eunuchs  for  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven's  sake.  He  that  is 
able  to  receive  it,  let  him  receive  it."  (Matt.  xix.  9-12.)  The 
Catholic  translation  has  it  "  all  men  do  not."  And  Catholic 
writers  insist  that  the  Protestant  is  a  plain  mistranslation.  But 
it  does  not  seem  to  me  that  the  sense  is  at  all  affected.  It  re- 
mains the  same  with  either  translation. 

From  this  extract  there  would  seem  to  follow  certain  plain 
conclusions :  1.  That  there  were  two  classes  of  persons  men- 
tioned by  our  Lord.  2.  That  the  saying  prohibiting  a  man 
from  putting  away  his  wife,  except  for  the  cause  stated,  did  not 
apply  to  one  of  these  classes.  3.  That  this  excepted  class  was 
the  class  mentioned  in  the  second  instance  ;  and  that  such  per- 
sons were  allowed  to  put  away  their  wives  without  any  such 
misconduct  on  their  part  as  that  mentioned. 

The  Christian,  like  other  systems  of  law,  has-  provisions,  both 
mandatory  and  prohibitory.  Whatever,  therefore,  is  not  pro- 
hibited, may  be  done  under  any  code.  This  provision  of  the 
law  is  prohibitory,  not  mandatory.  It  says  you  must  not  do  a 
specified  act,  except  for  the  cause  mentioned.  This  provision 
then  only  applies  to  the  class  to  whom  it  was  given ;  and,  there- 
fore, leaves  out  the  excepted  class,  who  do  not  come  within  the 
prohibition.  The  excepted  class,  not  being  prohibited  from 
doing  the  act  specified,  are  not  controlled  by  this  provision,  and 
we  must  look  to  other  portions  of  the  law  that  apply,  either  spe- 
cially to  this  excepted  class,  or  to  all  classes,  which  of  course 
would  include  this.  We  must  give  all  the  provisions  their  full,  but 
harmonious  force.  They  must  stand  and  operate  together,  as  the 
intention  of  the  Divine  Lawmaker  could  not  have  been  confused. 

It  is  clear  that  eunuchs,  being  the  excepted  class,  could  put 
away  their  wives  without  the  misconduct  mentioned.  And  if 
the  first  two  classes  of  eunuchs  could  do  so,  the  third  class  could 
also.  If,  then,  a  man  makes  himself  chaste  for  the  kingdom  of 
heaven's  sake,  and  puts  away  his  wife  with  her  free  consent, 
when  given  under  proper  circumstances,  does  he  not  fill  the 
character  spoken  of  by  Christ  ?  Does  he  violate  that  saying  of 
our  Lord,  given  in  the  ninth  verse  ?  And  does  he,  by  this  act, 
violate  any  other  prohibitory  provision  of  the  law  ?  If  so,  why 
did  Christ  make  him  one  of  the  excepted  class  ? 


392  EFFECTS    OF   THE    CATHOLIC 

But  this  question  arises :  If  the  man  who  makes  himself 
chaste  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven's  sake,  may  put  away  his  wife 
without  the  general  cause  mentioned,  may  he  not  also  marry 
another,  as  no  part  of  the  prohibition  applies  to  him  ?  I  appre- 
hend not.  He  belongs  to  the  excepted  class,  because  he  makes 
himself  chaste  from  the  motive  stated ;  and  by  marrying  another 
wife,  he  ceases  to  be  chaste,  at  once  forfeits  his  claim  to  be  one 
of  the  excepted  class,  and  thus  comes  properly  within  the  prohi- 
bition. But  it  may  be  asked :  If  a  man  in  the  case  supposed, 
can  put  away  his  wife  with  her  consent,  why  cannot  he  do  so 
without  her  consent,  if  it  be  true  that  this  prohibition  does  not 
apply  to  him  ?  Because,  to  put  her  away  without  her  consent, 
would  be  a  violation  of  those  general  principles  of  the  law 
which  apply  to  all  classes,  including  this  excepted  class.  For 
whether  we  regard  marriage  as  a  contract,  or  both  as  a  sacra- 
ment and  a  contract,  its  duties  cannot  be  avoided  in  the  case 
mentioned,  without  the  mutual  consent  of  both  parties.  Their 
first  engagement  is  to  each  other ;  and  the  law  of  Christ  does 
not  require  or  permit  us  to  violate  our  honest  and  lawful  en- 
gagements, to  fill  a  mere  counsel  of  perfection.  And  the  same 
general  principle  would  prevent  the  separation  of  husband  and 
wife,  even  when  they  had  given  their  mutual  consent  from  mo- 
tives of  piety,  if  it  would  materially  interfere  with  the  discharge 
of  their  duties  to  their  children  or  other  dependents. 

Unless  the  passage  has  this  meaning,  I  cannot  understand  it 
to  mean  any  thing.  That  Christ  does  lay  down  the  general 
rule  in  the  ninth  verse,  is  not  only  clear  from  the  general  lan- 
guage used,  but  from  the  nature  of  the  subject  matter  itself,  and 
that  He  intends  an  exception  to  that  rule  in  the  twelfth  verse, 
would  seem  to  be  plain,  for  He  says  expressly,  "  all  men  cannot 
receive  this  saying,  save  they  to  whom  it  is  given."  It  could 
not,  then,  have  been  given  to  all /  and  those  to  whom  it  was 
not  given,  were  certainly  excepted. 

Now  were  those  who  made  themselves  eunuchs  [chaste]  for 
the  kingdom  of  heaven's  sake,  to  blame  for  doing  so,  or  were 
they  worthy  of  commendation,  in  the  eye  of  Christ  ?  It  would 
seem  clear,  that  they  were  either  blamable  or  commendable  for 
the  act,  and  that  it  could  not  be  merely  indifferent.  And  that 
this  act  was  commendable  seems  clear,  not  only  from  the  fact 


EFFECTS    OF   THE   CATHOLIC    SYSTEM.  393 

that  Christ  mentions  it  without  censure,  but  because  the  privi- 
lege of  putting  away  the  wife,  without  the  cause  mentioned,  wa& 
extended  to  them,  as  well  as  the  other  kind  of  eunuchs  spoken 
of.  The  language  of  our  Lord  in  the  twenty-seventh  verse,  that 
those  who  forsake  wives  shall  receive  certain  rewards,  makes 
His  meaning  still  more  clear.  By  putting  these  considerations 
together,  the  intent  of  our  Lord  to  place  celibacy  above  mar- 
riage, as  a  more  holy  state,  would  seem  to  be  undoubted. 

But  when  we  take  the  language  of  St.  Paul  in  connection 
with  that  of  Christ,  the  intention  would  seem  to  be  plain.  For 
the  apostle,  in  the  fifteenth  chapter  of  his  first  Epistle  to  the 
Corinthians,  certainly  does  place  celibacy  above  marriage,  as  a 
more  holy  state.  The  only  doubt  as  to  the  sentiments  of  St. 
Paul  regards  the  question  whether  his  recommendation  was 
temporary  or  continuing.  Whatever  Christ  intended  could  not 
have  been  temporary,  but  continuing  ;  for  it  is  given  in  a  form 
as  permanent  as  the  general  rule  itself,  that  a  man  shall  not  put 
away  his  wife,  save  for  the  cause  stated.  So,  if  the  general  rule 
be  permanent,  the  exception  is  also  permanent,  for  no  distinction 
is  made  between  them  in  this  respect. 

If  the  language  of  our  Lord,  and  that  of  St.  Paul,  relate  to 
the  same  matter,  they  both  must  be  of  the  same  import,  and, 
therefore,  are  either  both  temporary,  or  both  continuing.  It  is 
true,  the  apostle  says  in  the  twenty-sixth  verse : 

"  I  suppose  therefore  that  this  is  good  for  the  present  dis- 
tress. I  say  that  it  is  good  for  a  man  so  to  be." 

Now  did  this  verse  apply  to  aU  the  preceding  matters  in 
this  chapter  ?  If  not,  to  what  portion  ?  Many  things  are  stated 
in  preceding  verses,  and  to  which  of  them  did  the  apostle  refer? 
My  own  impression  is,  that  he  intended  it  as  a  limitation  to  the 
wish  expressed  in  the  seventh  verse :  "  I  would  that  all  men 
were  even  as  I  myself." 

But  after  the  statement  made  in  the  twenty- sixth  verse,  and 
TV  hen  he  seems  to  speak  of  the  two  states  generally r,  without  re- 
gard to  time,  he  says :  "  He  that  is  unmarried  careth  for  the 
things  that  belong  to  the  Lord,  how  he  may  please  the  Lord  : 
but  he  that  is  married  careth  for  the  things  of  the  world,  how 
he  may  please  his  wife.  There  is  a  difference  also  between  a 
wife  and  a  virgin.  The  unmarried  woman  careth  for  the  things 
35  " 


3i  EFFECTS    OF    THE    CATHOLIC    SYSTEM. 

of  the  Lord,  that  she  may  be  holy  both  in  body  and  spirit :  but 
she  that  is  married  careth  for  the  things  of  the  world,  how  she 
may  please  her  husband." 

If  the  apostle  intended  his  recommendation  as  only  tem- 
porary, and  not  continuing  beyond  the  then  "  present  distress," 
he  gave,  it  would  seem,  some  most  illogical  reasons  for  it — rea- 
sons that  apply  to  all  time,  in  support  of  a  mere  temporary  mat- 
ter. But  these  reasons  are  of  such  a  character,  that  it  seems 
impossible  that  they  could  be  intended  to  apply  to  a  mere  tern- 
porary  recommendation,  arising  solely  from  the  then  present 
circumstances.  For  the  apostle  speaks  of  virgins  being  "  holy 
both  in  body  and  spirit /  "  and  holiness  in  both  these  respects, 
could  not  be  possessed  by  the  married  woman.  And  is  it  not 
clear,  that  holiness  in  both  body  and  spirit,  must  be  superior  to 
holiness  in  spirit  only  ?  The  apostle  does  say  most  distinctly, 
44  there  is  a  difference  between  a  wife  and  a  virgin,"  and  he  does 
make  this  difference  consist  in  the  virgin  being  "  holy  both  m 
body  and  spirit,"  while  the  married  woman  was  not  holy  in 
both  these  respects,  but  only  in  one.  And  as  there  was  an  ex- 
press difference,  it  was  in  favor  of  the  virgin.  And  if  this  be 
so,  was  there  not  good  reason  why  this  superior  holiness  should 
be  recommended  by  St.  Paul  for  all  coming  time  ?  Or  did  the 
apostle  mean  to  say,  that  the  virgin  was  holy  both  in  body  and 
spirit  only  during  the  then  present  distress  ? 

I  must  confess,  I  cannot  understand  him  as  giving  permanent 
reasons  for  a  temporary  matter  ;  for  permanent  reasons  cannot, 
with  any  sort  of  truth  or  consistency,  be  given  in  such  cases. 
Temporary  matters  must  arise  from  temporary  causes.  That 
permanent  causes  could  produce  mere  temporary  effects,  would 
seem  clearly  erroneous.  If  a  temporary  practice  is  intended  to 
be  inculcated,  there  can  be  no  force  in  permanent  reasons,  when 
applied  to  such  a  case.  There  is  no  connection  between  the 
cause  and  the  assumed  effect.  The  answer  of  a  witness  must  be 
responsive  to  the  question  propounded;  and  the  effect  must 
legitimately  flow  from  the  cause,  and  be  as  consistent  with  it  as 
the  stream  is  to  its  fountain.* 


*  The  following  beautiful  testimony  to  celibacy  is  from  the  late  work  of  Dr. 
Schaff,  a  distinguished  Protestant  divine,  not  less  remarkable  for  his  learning 


EFFECTS    OF   THE   CATHOLIC   SYSTEM.  395 

§  4.  The  same  subject  continued. 

But  the  Catholic  clergy  not  only  make  greater  sacrifices 
than  the  Protestant  in  giving  up  so  many  privileges  dear  to  hu- 
man nature,  and  so  highly  esteemed  by  Protestant  clergymen 
generally ;  but  they  take  upon  themselves  a  ministry  far  more 
laborious,  painful,  and  hazardous.  They  have  the  preaching  of 
the  gospel  to  do  as  well  as  the  Protestant ;  and  besides  this, 
they  have,  in  addition,  other  duties  to  perform,  still  more  ardu- 
ous. The  discipline  of  the  Church  to  which  they  belong  is  far  more 
rig'id  and  strict  than  that  of  the  Protestant,  and  far  more  rigidly 
executed  and  enforced.  For  the  Catholic  clergyman  is  not  only 
under  the  strict  supervision  of  his  superior,  but  he  is  bound  by 
his  vows  to  perform  his  duty  regularly. 

As  Christ  enjoins  constant  prayer,  the  Church  requires  all 
her  clergy,  from  the  sub-deacon  to  the  Pope,  daily  to  say  the 
Seven  Canonical  Hours,  consisting  chiefly  of  Scriptural  Psalms 
and  Lessons,  which  take  up  in  the  recital  near  an  hour  and  a 
half,  in  addition  to  their  other  devotions.  In  reference  to 
fasting,  the  Church  of  England  in  her  Homily  iv.  uses  this  lan- 
guage :  "  That  we  ought  to  fast  is  a  truth  too  manifest  to  stand 
in  need  of  any  proof."  In  pursuance  of  this  sentiment,  that 

than  for  his  love  of  antiquity,  and  for  his  temperate  sentiments  respecting  the 
Reformation : 

"  To  Paul,  who  spent  his  life  in  missionary  travel,  and  who  was  exposed  to 
all  privations,  hardships,  and  persecutions,  the  married  state,  with  its  temporal 
cares,  and  all  sorts  of  personal  matters  of  attention,  must  have  seemed  rather  a 
hinderance  to  the  fulfilment  of  his  apostolic  calling,  and  the  single  state  more  fa- 
vorable to  his  activity  in  the  service  of  his  Redeemer.  With  him  celibacy  was 
actually  an  elevation  above  all  earthly  cares,  an  entire  devotion  to  the  purest  love 
and  the  holiest  interests,  in  anticipation  of  the  vita  Angelica.  And  who  will  deny 
that  such  cases  repeatedly  occur  ?  Who  does  not  know  that  the  voluntary  celi- 
oacy  of  so  many  self  denying  missionaries,  especially  in  times  of  wild  barbarism 
and  dissolution,  as  at  the  entrance  of  the  Middle  Ages,  was,  in  the  hand  of  God, 
a  great  blessing,  in  mightily  promoting  the  spread  of  the  Gospel  among  the  rude 
nations,  and  under  numberless  privations.  Here  Christianity  deviated  from  the 
old  Jewish  view,  in  which  celibacy  was  a  disgrace  and  a  curse  ;  it  can  transform 
this  state  into  a  charm,  and  use  it  for  its  own  ends.  Without  the  knowledge  of 
the  peculiar  value  and  manifold  benefits  of  this  virginity,  which  grew  out  of  un- 
reserved enthusiasm  for  Christ  and  his  Gospel,  it  is  impossible  properly  to  under- 
stand the  history  of  the  Church,  especially  before  the  Reformation." 


396          EFFECTS  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  SYSTEM. 

church  enjoins  in  her  Common  Prayer  Book  the  same  days  of 
fasting  and  abstinence  with  the  Catholic  Church;  that  is  to 
say,  the  forty  days  of  Lent,  the  Emby  days,  all  the  Fridays  in 
the  year,  &G.  But  who  observes  these  rules  ?  Who  keeps 
these  days  ?  And  where  is  the  Protestant,  to  be  found  who  imi- 
tates the  example  of  Old  Paul  and  the  early  Church,  in  their 
frequent  fastings  ?  And  after  all  the  ridicule  which  has  been, 
or  can  be,  thrown  upon  the  practice  of  fasting,  is  it  not  founded 
in  apostolic  practice,  in  reason,  truth,  and  right  ?  Is  it  not  bene- 
ficial, in  and  of  itself?  Is  not  man  a  creature  that  needs 
discipline  at  every  step  of  his  existence  ?  Does  he  not  need  a 
trial — a  test — a  sacrifice — at  all  times  ?  If  he  never  could  for- 
get his  duty — his  dependence — his  end; — in  other  words,  if  he 
was  perfect  without  the  use  of  discipline,  it  might  not  be  so. 
And  if  the  practice  was  not  eminently  beneficial,  why  did  the 
early  Church  observe  it  so  much  ?  There  must  have  been  some 
good  reason  for  such  a  practice,  in  that  day  of  light,  certainty, 
and  devotion. 

Among  the  regular  and  painful  duties  of  the  Catholic  clergy- 
man, may  be  mentioned  that  of  hearing  confessions.  This  duty 
requires  much  time,  labor,  patience,  study,  and  attention,  as 
well  as  the  qualities  of  clear  discrimination  and  mild  firmness. 
Those  outside  the  Church  hardly  can  know  how  great  the  labor 
of  the  Confessional  is,  and  the  amount  of  true  patience  required 
to  discharge  well  its  delicate  and  important  duties.  The  Con- 
fessor must  not  only  hear  the  narration  of  the  vices  and  sins  of 
each  individual — those  painful  errors  so  humiliating  to  human 
nature — but  he  must  suggest  a  remedy  for  the  ten  thousand  dis- 
eases of  distressed  souls,  who  tell  their  sins,  their  mistakes, 
and  their  shortcomings  to  him.  He  has  to  deal  with  every  vari- 
ety of  character  and  disposition — the  selfish — the  obstinate — the 
reckless — the  passionate — the  wayward — the  idle — the  over- 
scrupulous— the  imaginative — and  the  timid.  In  short,  with 
every  variety  of  character,  from  the  repentant  criminal  to  the 
humble  saint.  That  such  duties  are  onerous  and  painful,  as 
well  as  laborious  and  responsible,  would  seem  to  require  no 
proof  with  the  sensible  and  reflective  mind. 

But  the  most  painful  and  arduous,  because  the  most  irregular, 
the  most  sudden  and  dangerous,  of  the  duties  of  the  Catholic  cler 


EFFECTS    OF   THE   CATHOLIC    SYeTEM.  397 

gy,  is  the  sick  call.  However  poor,  destitute,  and  unworthy  the 
sick  person  may  be,  it  is  the  imperative  duty  of  the  priest  to  go 
and  see  him.  There  can  be  no  excuse  short  of  the  most  insur- 
mountable obstacle.  The  poor  dying  soul  has  a  right  to  the  last 
sacraments  of  the  Church.  And  the  priest  must  go.  It  dees 
not  matter  what  may  be  the  personal  danger  or  inconvenience 
to  himself,  he  must  go.  Through  the  darkness  of  midnight,  be- 
neath the  withering  summer's  sun,  or  facing  the  scathing  blasts 
of  winter,  through  storm  and  calm,  he  must  go.  And  when  the 
pestilence  and  famine  rage, 

"  When  nature  sickens,  and  each  gale  is  death," 

he  must  still  go.  He  has  undertaken  a  sacred  duty,  and  has 
pledged  his  life  to  it.  It  must  be  discharged.  He  professed 
himself  a  true  under-shepherd  of  the  flock,  not  a  hireling,  and 
he  must  lay  down  his  life  for  the  sheep,  and  not  desert  his  flock 
in  the  hour  of  danger.  His  rigid  Church  permits  no  recreancy 
in  the  discharge  of  such  a  trust.  He  cannot  flee.  He  must 
stand  and  die  in  the  deadly  breach.  Did  he  not  deliberately 
and  voluntarily  undertake  to  drink  this  cup,  and  must  he  not 
drink  it  ?  In  this  ministry  he  meets  with  tears,  and  groans,  and 
agonies.  He  has  no  smile  to  greet  him,  but  the  sweet  smile 
upon  the  lips  of  the  departing  saint. 

But  besides  these  sacrifices  and  labors,  the  whole  spirit  of 
the  Catholic  system  tends  to  merge  the  importance  of  individ- 
uals in  that  of  the  Church.  She  is  every  thing — individual 
fame  and  importance,  comparatively,  nothing.  The  Catholic 
clergyman  knows  that  the  important  functions  performed  by 
him,  are  equally  performed  by  others.  He  knows  that  the  very 
vestments  he  wears,  while  performing  his  official  duties,  belong 
not  to  him,  but  to  the  Church.  The  only  advantage  he  can 
gain  over  others,  is  in  the  more  faithful  discharge  of  his  duties ; 
and  this  can  only  be  attained  by  increased  labor  and  devotion. 

Before  he  becomes  a  minister  in  the  Catholic  Church,  if  he 
is  proud  and  vain  of  his  own  personal  qualities  and  appearance, 
he  had  better  not  enter  her  ministry,  if  he  expects  to  indulge 
these  passions ;  for  he  will  find  himself  checked  and  mortified 
at  every  step.  If  he  has  not  the  faith  and  moral  nerve  to  face 
death  deliberately  in  the  discharge  of  his  duty,  at  every  step, 


398  EFFECTS    OF    THE    CATHOLIC    SYSTEM. 

when  required,  he  had  better  desist.  If  he  is  self-willed,  head- 
strong, obstinate,  and  fond  of  flattery,  he  had  better  not  go 
there.  If  he  is  like  Demosthenes,  whose  brilliant  orations  only 
elicited  one  response  from  the  Athenians,  "  Let  us  rise  and  march 
against  Philip  ; "  but  who,  when  Philip  and  his  armies  appeared, 
was  among  the  first  to  flee,  he  had  better  not  undertake  the 
daily  sacrifices  to  be  found  in  this  laborious  and  devoted  min- 
istry. 

These  sacrifices,  labors,  and  dangers,  are  more  conclusive  evi- 
dences of  deep  and  abiding  faith  and  devotion,  than  all  the  elo- 
quent discourses  ever  delivered.  These  are  the  decisive  tests 
that  cannot  be  disputed.  They  are  simple,  practical,  and  cer- 
tain. In  vain  may  the  motives  of  such  men  be  assailed.  Such 
grapes  do  not  grow  upon  thorns.  Men  do  not  voluntarily  live 
poor,  work  hard,  and  die  willingly,  from  improper  motives.  And 
when  I  see  the  Catholic  clergy  always  at  their  posts,  ready  to 
die  with  the  members  of  their  suffering  flocks,  and  so  many  of 
them  thus  falling  martyrs  to  their  duty,  while  so  many  Protes- 
tant clergymen,  (with  some  noble  exceptions,)  so  promptly  act- 
ing upon  that  saying,  "  A  wise  man  foreseeth  the  evil,  and  fleeth 
therefrom,"  I  cannot  but  draw  the  conclusion  that  there  is,  and 
must  be,  some  great  radical  difference  in  the  two  theories.  One 
seems  studiously  adapted  to  keep  alive  and  perpetuate  the  apos- 
tolic spirit  of  self-abnegation,  while  the  other  is  as  studiously 
adapted  to  suppress  it. 

If  an  aspirant  to  the  Protestant  ministry  be  self-willed,  and 
fond  of  his  own  opinions,  among  the  five  hundred  sects  in  Prot- 
estant Christendom,  he  will  be  very  apt  to  find  one  to  suit  him  ; 
but  if  not,  he  can  organize  a  new  sect  to  suit  himself,  and  the 
older  Protestant  sects  cannot  consistently  assail  him  upon  the 
ground  of  innovation.  If  they  do,  he  has  ample  materials  for 
refutation  and  triumph.  Let  him  join  which  one  lie  will,  he  is 
( free  to  settle  where  he  pleases,  and  to  stipulate  for  his  salary. 
If  he  be  a  man  of  talents,  and  a  popular  speaker,  he  can  obtain 
a  much  larger  salary.  The  matter  rests  with  him  and  the  par- 
ticular congregation.  The  church  does  not  interfere.  If  he  be 
ambitious,  and  fond  of  public  meetings,  the  oflices  of  the  coun- 
try are  open  to  him,  and  hence  we  find  them  in  our  Legislative 
halls,  both  State  and  Federal. 


EFFECTS  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  SYSTEM.          399 

In  short,  the  Protestant  clergyman  preaches  as  long  as  he 
pleases — to  whom  he  pleases — and  if  the  ministerial  duties  do 
n  )t  please  him,  and  any  thing  preferable  should  offer,  he  is  at 
liberty  to  lay  aside  the  clerical  profession  at  his  own  election. 
He  lives  as  well,  dresses  as  well,  has  all  the  comforts  of  horne,| 
wife,  children,  and  friends  ;  for  the  Protestant  clergy,  taken  as 
a  class,  enjoy  as  many  of  the  comforts  of  life  as  lawyers,  physi- 
cians, and  other  professional  men,  while  their  labors  are  not  more 
arduous,  if  so  much  so.  In  short,  they  have  all  the  privileges 
of  their  lay  brethren,  and  are  required  to  make  no  more  sacri- 
fices. Such  are  the  general  facts  with  reference  to  the  general 
Protestant  ministerial  theory.  But  there  are  some  exceptions 
in  reference  to  a  portion  of  these  particulars,  in  some  of  the 
Protestant  Churches.  The  Methodist  clergy  are  under  a  more 
rigid  discipline  than  those  of  other  Protestant  sects.  There  may 
be  other  exceptions  as  to  some  other  parties. 

These  characteristics  of  the  Protestant  ministry  have  made 
it  a  mere  profession,  sought  as  a  means  of  making  a  living,  like 
other  professions,  in  too  many  cases.  It  is  a  profession  lucrative 
to  some,  and  comfortable  to  the  great  majority.  It  is  true,  that 
the  great  majority  of  Protestant  ministers  cannot  hope,  if  they 
wished,  to  make  a  fortune  ;  but  it  is  equally  true  that  the  great 
majority  of  every  calling  and  profession  cannot  expect  to  grow 
rich  ;  and  that  most  men  are  well  satisfied  if  they  enjoy  the  or- 
dinary comforts  of  life,  without  being  rich.  And  it  is  very  nat- 
ural that  a  theory  of  Christian  ministry  which  requires  very  few, 
if  any  sacrifices,  affords  comfortable  livings,  and  imposes  only 
moderate  labor,  must  necessarily  contain  a  greater  number  of 
venal  and  unworthy  ministers. 

Is  it,  then,  at  all  surprising,  that  in  the  hour  of  extreme  dan- 
ger, when  the  rigid  test  of  acts,  and  not  of  words,  is  applied,  so 
many  Protestant  ministers  flee  from  their  flocks,  and  leave  them 
to  take  care  of  themselves  ?  that  when  the  sickly  season  ap- 
proaches in  New  Orleans,  the  eloquent  Mr. ,  the  power- 
ful Mr. ,  and  the  declamatory  Mr. ,  should  leave 

their  flocks  for  a  pleasure  trip  to  the  North,  and  return  with  re- 
turning frosts  in  the  fall  ?  or  that  so  many  should  have  left  Nor- 
folk during  the  prevalence  of  the  yellow  fever  there  ? 


400          EFFECTS  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  SYSTEM. 


§  5.  The  piety  of  the  different  orders  of  the  Church. 

But  in  addition  to  the  sacrifices  made  by  the  regular  clergy 
of  the  Catholic  Church,  those  made  by  the  numerous  orders  in 
her  communion  constitute  the  most  conclusive  tests  of  faith  and 
humility.  For  after  all  the  ridicule  and  contempt  that  has  been, 
or  can  be,  poured  out  upon  these  orders ;  and  after  all  the  cal- 
umnies and  aspersions  that  have  been  heaped  upon  them ;  and 
after  all  the  occasional  vices  of  individual  members  ;  and  despite 
all  the  envy  and  misrepresentation  of  their  enemies,  the  sublime, 
simple,  and  inflexible  fact  will  stand  apparent^  that  they  do 
make  sacrifices,  and  exhibit  proofs  of  devotion,  that  their  ene- 
mies cannot  reach.  And  if  there  be  truth  in  Christianity,  there 
is  something  beautiful  and  holy  in  the  example  of  an  humble  fol- 
lower of  a  rneek  Saviour,  voluntarily  giving  up  all  earthly  pur- 
suits and  enjoyments,  and  dedicating  his  whole  life  to  the  entire 
service  of  the  crucified  Redeemer.  Like  the  poor  widow  men- 
tioned by  our  Lord  as  casting  all  she  had  into  the  treasury,  and 
so  much  commended  by  Him,  the  act  of  giving  up  all  for  Chiist 
is  the  most  conclusive  test  of  abiding  faith  in  the  truth  of  His 
sublime  system.  One  such  example  is  worth  more  than  the  ex- 
ample of  a  thousand  frigid  Christians.  And  such  a  dedication 
is  but  the  legitimate  and  logical  result  of  a  full,  firm,  and  im- 
plicit faith. 

And  that  a  life  of  holy  poverty  and  entire  devotion  to  Christ, 
was  by  Him  held  as  a  more  holy  state,  would  seem  most  distinctly 
and  clearly  stated  by  Himself.  For  we  are  told,  in  the  nine- 
teenth chapter  of  St.  Matthew's  Gospel,  that  a  young  man  came 
to  our  Lord  and  asked,  "  What  good  thing  he  should  do,  that 
he  might  have  eternal  life."  And  he  was  answered,  "  If  thou 
wilt  enter  into  life,  keep  the  commandments."  The  young  man 
having  answered,  "  All  these  things  have  I  kept  from  my  youth 
up :  what  lack  I  yet  ?  "  our  Lord  made  him  this  plain  and  ex- 
plicit reply  :  "  If  thou  wilt  be  perfect,  go  and  sell  that  thou  hast, 
and  give  to  the  poor,  and  thou  shalt  have  treasure  in  heaven  ; 
and  come  and  follow  me."  And  the  young  man  would  not  do 
this,  but  "  went  away  sorrowing,  for  he  had  great  possessions." 
The  young  man  unquestionably  understood  our  Lord  as  recom- 


EFFKCTS   OF   THE   CATHOLIC   SYSTEM.  401 

mending  voluntary  poverty,  incurred  for  His  sake,  as  a  more 
holy  state  ;  otherwise,  there  was  no  cause  for  his  sorrow.* 

The  language  of  our  Lord  already  quoted  is  so  plain  and 

*  To  illustrate  my  meaning,  even  at  the  risk  of  an  apparent  solecism,  I  will 
suppose  this  young  man  to  have  pursued  two  different  courses  :  1.  That  he  went 
away,  kept  his  money,  married  a  wife,  raised  a  virtuous  family,  and  became  a 
most  exemplary  member  of  the  Church  of  Christ.  2.  That  he  went  away,  sold 
his  property,  distributed  the  proceeds  to  the  poor,  took  up  his  cross,  and  followed 
Christ,  dedicating  his  whole  being  to  his  Master's  Kingdom,  and  became  holy 
"  both  in  body  mid  spirit"  Now  let  the  honest  and  sincere,  the  meek  and  hum- 
ble, put  this  question  to  their  own  hearts  :  Under  the  Law  of  Christ,  as  He  Him- 
self put  it  forth,  which  of  these  two  state*  was  the  more  holy  ?  Can  there  be  r. 
doubt  as  to  what  the  answer  must  be  ? 

It  is  true,  that  those  who  oppose  celibacy,  and,  as  a  matter  of  course,  holy 
poverty,  (for  the  second  cannot  well  be  recommended  without  the  first,)  have  ad- 
vanced many  abstract  general  reasons  that  are  true ;  and  yet  they  do  not  at  all 
touch  the  real  question  Among  many  other  beautiful  things  said  by  Jeremy 
Taylor,  if  I  remember  correctly,  in  favor  of  marriage,  he  says,  in  substance,  that 
"  marriage  peoples  heaven  itself  with  angels."  This  is  true  ;  but  it  is  equally 
true  that  St  Paul  filled  heaven  with  angels,  although  he  was  never  married 
And  it  is  equally  true,  that  he  saved  more  souls  in  that  holy  state  of  celibacy  than 
he  could  have  done  with  a  family  on  his  hands,  for  the  reason,  that  he  was  thus 
enabled  to  perform  more  labor  for  his  Master.  Suppose  we  take  one  hundred 
ministers,  of  equal  qualifications  and  sincerity,  fifty  of  whom  shall  be  married, 
and  fifty  shall  remain  unmarried — will  not  the  fifty  unmarried  be  able  to  perform 
much  more  labor  for  the  Church,  at  much  less  cost  ?  The  superior  efficiency  and 
economy  of  an  unmarried  clergy  must  be  apparent. 

If  it  was  insisted  that  Christ  had  laid  it  down,  as  an  inflexible  law,  that  celibacy 
and  poverty  were  incumbent  upon  all,  then  these  general  objections  would  be 
good.  But  when  the  ground  taken  is  that  Christ  and  St.  Paul  only  put  forth  a 
counsel  of  perfection,  and  not  a  law,  these  general  objections  cannot  apply.  Mar- 
riage and  property  is  the  general  rule — celibacy  and  poverty,  the  exception. 

Our  Lord  put  forth  a  permanent  system,  adapted  to  all  time,  taken  as  one 
whole.  He  knew  (and  so  declared)  that  the  great  majority  of  men  would  never 
be  good  and  worthy  members  of  his  Church,  for  many  should  be  called,  and  few 
chosen.  Those,  of  course,  would  not  embrace  his  counsel.  He  also  knew  that 
the  great  and  overwhelming  majority  of  Christians  would  never  embrace  His 
perfect  state.  For  these  His  saying  was  not  intended.  The  recommendation 
was  then  only  intended,  and  only  calculated,  in  its  nature,  for  the  few — those 
noble  and  heroic  souls  who  could  and  would  voluntarily  embrace  such  a  state. 

It  must  be  obvious  to  good  sense,  that  while  no  state  could  exist  in  peace  and 
prosperity  without  marriage,  no  country  can  contain  beyond  a  given  number  of 
inhabitants  ;  and  that  the  earth  itself  has  its  limits,  as  to  its  capacity  to  sustain 
population.  It  is  equally  obvious  that  when  a  population  attains  a  proper  point 


402          EFFECTS  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  SYSTEM. 

explicit  that  it  would  seem  to  need  no  additional  explanation  ; 
and  if  it  did,  it  could  be  found  in  His  language  to  His  disciples 
in  reference  to  the  same  matter  in  succeeding  verses.  For 

of  density,  that  all  excess  beyond  this  becomes  a  burthen  to  the  state,  and  to  the 
starving  people  themselves.  And  it  must  be  equally  clear,  that  if  the  marriage 
of  almost  all  persons  in  a  thinly  populated  country  will  so  increase  the  population, 
that  in  a  century  or  two,  at  most,  the  population  will  reach  the  proper  point  of 
density,  then  it  is  equally  clear  that  after  it  attains  this  point,  under  the  same 
cause,  the  population  must  become  redundant,  and,  therefore,  suffering  and  de- 
pendent. With  a  redundant  population,  when  commercial  and  manufacturing 
affairs  are  prosperous,  and  the  crops  are  good,  the  population  can  be  sustained ; 
but  whenever  a  crisis  occurs,  either  from  commercial  disasters,  or  short  crops,  then 
numbers  must  perish.  Of  all  the  physical  evils  that  waylay  and  beset  the  thorny 
path  of  life,  none  is  so  great  as  that  of  starvation.  It  is  not  a  sudden  and  desper- 
ate onset  upon  the  physical  and  mental  powers ;  but  it  is  a  desperate  and  con- 
tinued assault,  that  undermines  both  body  and  mind ;  and  destroys  both,  inch 
by  inch. 

From  these  considerations,  it  would  seem  evident  to  the  political  economist, 
that  while  marriage  is  the  general  rule,  celibacy  is  a  useful  exception,  under 
proper  circumstances.  And  while  the  great  majority  of  persons  in  every  com- 
munity should  marry,  there  are  persons  who  should  not ;  and  by  not  entering  the 
marriage  state,  they  act  wisely  for  themselves,  and  also  for  the  state.  So  far, 
then,  as  general  and  abstract  considerations  go,  they  are  not  against  the  coun- 
sel of  celibacy  and  holy  poverty  in  the  few  ;  but  would  seem  manifestly  to  sup- 
port it. 

It  is  true,  it  is  said  by  some  that  celibacy  is  an  unnatural  state,  and,  there- 
fore, cannot  be  supported  with  fidelity.  But  this  is  true  in  generals,  and  untrue 
in  particulars.  St.  Paul  seems  to  have  had  a  very  different  opinion  ;  for  he  most 
clearly  distinguishes  between  those  who  can  remain  chaste,  and  those  who  can- 
not. Both  St.  Paul  and  St.  John  were  able  to  remain  in  that  state  of  holiness, 
both  in  body  and  spirit.  So,  the  great  majority  of  respectable  single  persons  of 
both  sexes,  that  either  never  marry,  or  marry  at  a  late  period  of  life,  remain 
chaste.  These  persons,  without  any  religious  vows,  maintain  their  chastity ;  and 
why  persons  cannot  do  so  who  take  a  vow,  and  dedicate  themselves  to  the  sole 
iervice  of  God,  it  is  difficult  to  understand.  Certainly  they  have  additional  and 
more  powerful  motives,  and  are  surrounded  with  additional  checks. 

This  "  necessity  "  of  marriage  was  maintained  by  Luther ;  but  as  he  himself 
only  married  at  the  age  of  forty-five,  his  case  proved  one  of  two  things  :  1,  eithe* 
that  he  had  remained  chaste  through  wild  youth,  and  therefore  was  mistaken 
about  this  necessity  ;  or  2,  that  he  had  himself  been  guilty  of  scandalous  excesses. 
The  same  sentiment  I  heard  expressed  by  an  unmarried  man  not  long  since, 
•whom  I  knew  well,  and  who  was  about  the  age  of  thirty.  He  insisted  that  all 
men  possessed  the  like  passions,  and,  therefore,  did  and  must  indulge  them  in  the 
same  degree.  From  which  he  concluded  there  could  be  no  chaste  persons.  I 


EFFECTS    OF   THE   CATHOLIC    SYSTEM.  403 

when  Peter  had  said,  "  Behold,  we  have  forsaken  all  and  fol- 
lowed thee,"  our  Lord  answered,  among  other  things ;  "  And 
every  one  that  hath  forsaken  houses,  or  brethren,  or  sisters,  or 
father,  or  mother,  or  wife,  or  children,  or  lands,  for  my  name's 
sake,  shall  receive  an  hundred  fold,  and  shall  inherit  everlasting 
life." 

From  these  passages  it  is  plain,  that  our  Lord  did  recom- 
mend the  young  man  to  sell  all  his  property  and  give  to  the 
poor,  and  for  thus  doing,  he  should  have  treasure  in  heaven. 
And  it  is  equally  clear,  that  Christ  did  offer  rewards  to  those 
who  forsook  either  the  property  or  the  persons  mentioned.  If 
then  the  more  devoted  Christians  in  all  ages  should  follow  the 
example  recommended  by  Christ  to  the  youngx  man,  do  they 
thereby  sin  ?  On  the  contrary,  do  they  not  do  precisely  that 
which  the  meek  Saviour  recommended,  and  to  the  performance 
of  which  He  did  promise  "  treasure  in  heaven "  ?  Can  all  the 
eloquent  and  polished  sophistry  in  the  world  avoid  the  plain  in- 
tent of  Christ  ?  Can  all  the  whisperings  of  immediate  self-inter- 
est, (powerful  as  they  are,)  and  all  the  deductions  of  sensual 
pride,  explain  away  this  plain  language  ?  And  if  we  have  not 
sufficient  faith  and  virtue  of  our  own — or  if  our  circumstances 
will  not  permit  us — to  do  as  our  Lord  recommended,  should 
we  envy  and  asperse  those  who  do  ?  On  the  contrary,  ought 
we  not  to  have  the  noble  and  manly  candor  to  admire  and  love 
those  heroic  souls  who  can  and  do  attain  superior  virtue  ? 

The  most  difficult  of  all  virtues  to  acquire  and  practice,  is 
that  of  sweet  humility.  It  is  the  truest  test  of  practical  piety. 
How  hard  it  is  to  overcome  the  spirit  of  revenge,  that  natural 
impulse  of  the  human  heart !  How  hard  to  bear,  with  calm 
resignation,  the  insults  of  others !  How  difficult  to  withstand 

was  forced  to  reply  to  him,  in  substance,  "  That  admitting  all  men  did  possess 
the  same  passions,  they  did  not  possess  them  in  the  same  degree,  and  they  con- 
trolled them  hi  a  very  different  manner.  And  that  he  had  the  most  evident  mo- 
tive for  his  conclusion,  as  it  excused  and  sustained  his  own  conduct,  for  there  was 
one,  certain  truth  in  his  theory,  that  he  himself  was  not  chaste."  I  was  once  told 
by  a  man  that  he  did  not  believe  there  was  an  honest  man  in  the  world.  I  con- 
cluded, that  while  I  could  not  agree  with  him  in  whole,  I  did  in  part ;  for  it  was 
clear  that  he  was  not  honest  himself. 


4:04:  EFFECTS    OF   THE   CATHOLIC    SYSTEM. 

the  finger  of  scorn — the  withering  sarcasm — the  sallies  of  vil- 
lanous  wit — and  above  all, 

"  The  Godless  look  of  earth  "  I 

But  this  most  difficult  of  all  the  practical  virtues  has  been 
attained  in  the  greatest  perfection  by  the  great  majority  of 
those  who  belong  to  these  orders — "those  courageous  souls, 
who  form  the  most  absolute  and  efficacious  purpose  to  pursue 
the  right  road,  in  spite  of  every  obstacle,  and  without  examin- 
ing whether  they  have  to  experience  relief  or  disgust,  pleasure 
or  pain,  consolation  or  desolation  *  *  *  who  go  straight  to 
God,  by  an  unconditional  surrender  and  complete  denial  of 
themselves,  in  the  spirit  of  a  profound  humility,  of  a  sweetness 
of  heart,  and  an  equality  of  mind." 

Among  the  most  notable  examples  may  be  mentioned  that 
of  St.  Jane  Francis  de  Chantal,  who  was  descended  from  a  no- 
ble and  wealthy  family,  and  who  was  the  widow  of  a  wealthy 
nobleman,  but  who  gave  up  all  for  Christ.  This  eminently  holy 
person  was  the  foundress  of  the  order  of  The  Visitation.  The 
misfortunes,  the  trials,  the  calumnies,  contradictions,  and  insults 
to  which  this  devoted  woman  was  subjected  were  certainly 
most  grievous,  long-continued,  and  oft-repeated.  She  had  to 
endure  every  sort  of  test,  short  of  that  of  actual  personal  vio- 
lence. And  under  all  these  trials  she  was  never  known  to  re- 
turn reproach  for  insult,  nor  a  railing  accusation  to  calumny. 
For  her  noble  and  beautiful  sentiment  was,  that  "  without  solid 
humility  there  can  exist  only  shadows  and  phantoms  of  virtue. 
Blessed  is  the  soul  that  humbles  herself  before  God,  and  uu- 
feignedly  accuses  herself  before  creatures :  she  will  recover 
what  she  has  lost  by  her  own  fault.  Humility  of  heart,  and  sub- 
mission of  will  and  judgment,  must  ever  be  deemed  the  ground 
of  all  perfection." 

§  6.   Contemplative  religion. 

In  reference  to  contemplative  religion,  an  eminent  divine  of 
the  Church  of  England  has  said :  "  In  England,  I  could  almost 
say,  we  are  too  little  acquainted  with  contemplative  religion. 
The  monk,  painted  by  Sterne,  may  give  us  a  more  favorable 
idea  of  it  than  our  prejudices  generally  suggest.  I  once  trav 


EFFECTS    OF   THE   CATHOLIC    SYSTEM.  405 

elled  with  a  Recolet,  and  conversed  with  a  Minim  at  his  con- 
vent ;  and  they  both  had  that  kind  of  character  which  Sterne 
gives  to  his  monk  :  that  refinement  of  body  and  mind,  that  pure 
glow  of  meliorated  passion,  that  polished  piety  and  humanity," 
<fcc  (Dr.  Hay's  Lectures  on  Divinity,  vol.  i.  364.  Cited  Mil- 
ner's  End  of  Controversy,  Letter  xxii.) 

These  are  certainly  most  beautiful  traits  of  the  saint.  Are 
they  offensive  to  heaven  ?  And  if  we  find  them  so  common 
among  the  inmates  of  the  cloister,  is  it  not  an  evidence  that 
there  is  the  nursery  of  these  superlative  virtues  ? 

"  A  poor  monk  of  the  order  of  St.  Francis,"  says  Sterne, 
"  came  into  the  room  to  beg  something  for  his  convent.  The 
moment  I  cast  my  eyes  upon  him,  I  was  predetermined  not  to 
give  him  a  single  sous."  After  having  refused  the  boon  asked 
by  the  monk,  the  writer  continues :  " '  But  we  distinguish,'  said 
I,  laying  my  hand  upon  the  sleeve  of  his  tunic  in  return  for  his 
appeal,  4  we  distinguish,  my  good  father,  between  those  who 
wish  to  eat  only  the  bread  of  their  own  labor,  and  those  who 
wish  to  eat  the  bread  of  other  people,  and  have  no  other  plan 
of  life  but  to  get  through  it,  in  sloth  and  ignorance,  for  the  love 
of  God:  " 

There  was  bitter  sarcasm  in  all  that.  We  can  well  imagine 
the  contemptuous  expression  of  Sterne's  countenance,  when  he 
said  it.  The  reply  itself  imputed  to  the  poor  monk  the  most 
despicable  motives,  as  well  as  the  most  consummate  hypocrisy. 
Sterne  was  a  great  wit — not  always  very  chaste,  and  had  no 
particular  humility  to  restrain  him.  The  feelings  of  the  poor 
recluse  were,  therefore,  in  his  power.  So  far  as  insult  was  con- 
cerned, the  monk  was  his  prisoner. 

To  this  bitter  accusation  Sterne  says :  "  The  poor  Franciscan 
made  no  reply  :  a  hectic,  for  a  moment,  passed  across  his  cheek, 
but  could  not  tarry.  Nature  seemed  to  have  done  with  her  re- 
sentments in  him ;  he  showed  none,  but  letting  his  staff  fall 
within  his  arm,  he  pressed  both  his  hands  with  resignation  upon 
his  breast,  and  retired." 

But  to  the  honor  of  Sterne  he  repented  for  what  he  had 
done,  and  candidly  states  it. 

"My  heart  smote  me,"  he  says,  "the  moment  he  shut  the 
door.  4  Pshaw ! '  said  I,  with  an  air  of  carelessness,  three  sev- 


4:06  EFFECTS    OF   THE   CATHOLIC    SYSTEM. 

eral  times — but  it  would  not  do :  every  ungracious  syllable  I 
had  uttered  crowded  back  into  my  imagination ;  I  reflected  I 
had  no  right  over  the  poor  Franciscan  but  to  deny  him ;  and 
that  the  punishment  of  that  was  enough  to  the  disappointed 
without  the  addition  of  unkind  language.  I  considered  his  gray 
hairs ;  his  courteous  figure  seemed  to  re-enter,  and  gently  ask  me 
what  injury  he  had  done  to  me  ?  and  why  I  could  use  him  thus  ?  " 

I  do  not  know  that  this  monk  was  the  one  to  whom  Dr.  Hay 
refers,  as  I  have  not  now  access  to  Sterne's  Works,  and  have 
taken  these  extracts  from  another  book.  But  this  incident  is  a 
beautiful  illustration  of  the  influence  of  holy  poverty  upon  the 
Christian  character.  Here  two  very  opposite  characters  were 
contrasted,  face  to  face.  They  were  both  members  of  different 
Churches.  One  was  a  poor  Catholic  monk,  the  other  a  distin- 
guished Protestant  preacher.  One  could  give  an  insult — the 
other  could  bear  it  in  Christian  silence  and  submission.  "  Na- 
ture seemed  to  have  done  with  her  resentments  in  "  the  monk — 
"he  showed  none" — made  no  reply — crossed  his  hands  with 
resignation,  and  retired.  This  poor  insulted  and  despised  monk 
possessed  "that  refinement  of  body  and  mind,  that  pure  glow 
of  meliorated  passion,  that  polished  piety  and  humanity  "  so  be- 
fitting the  character  of  the  perfect  Christian.  We  must  admire 
Sterne's  candor  in  stating  the  facts  of  this  incident,  so  much  to 
the  advantage  of  the  gray-haired  and  courteous  monk.  We 
know  not  who  he  was.  His  name  is  not  given.  It  has  been 
doubtless  forgotten.  But  this  incident  will  live,  and  warm  the 
hearts  of  the  pious  and  the  good.  Who  would  not  prefer  to  be 
the  poor  monk,  in  preference  to  the  witty  and  scornful  Sterne  ? 
Is  not  pure  piety — that  "  holiness  both  of  body  and  spirit,"  as 
St.  Paul  has  it — more  estimable  and  lovely,  than  all  the  wit  and 
sarcasm  in  the  world  ?  And  will  it  not  pass  better  in  heaven  ? 
Wit  ends  with  earth  ;  but  virtue  lives  on.  One  passes  current 
with  men — the  other  with  God. 

It  seems  to  have  been  the  opinion  of  Sterne,  that  the  con- 
templative orders  had  nothing  to  do,  and  lived  in  idleness  and 
ignorance.  But  this  opinion  resulted  from  an  ignorance  in 
Sterne  himself,  of  the  discipline  and  devotions  of  these  orders. 
No  doubt  the  courteous  monk  was  as  learned  as  Sterne  himself, 
perhaps  even  more  so.  But  many  men  like  to  take  a  view  of 


EFFKCTS    OF   THE    CATHOLIC    SYSTEM.  407 

things  at  a  distance,  and  to  form  their  conclusions  from  some 
general  and  sweeping  assumption.  We  always  blame  that 
which  we  do  not  understand ;  and  we  never  understand  that 
which  we  do  not  investigate  with  care  and  impartiality. 

It  seemed  also  to  be  the  opinion  of  Sterne,  that  these  con- 
templative orders  were  of  no  practical  use  to  religion.  But 
with  all  due  deference  to  his  opinion,  I  must  say,  he  seems  to 
have  overlooked  the  practical  value  of  example.  The  single 
touching  incident  of  the  poor  Franciscan  has  done  more  for 
Christianity — pure,  genuine,  holy  and  gentle  Christianity — a 
thousand-fold,  than  all  that  Sterne — the  wit,  the  scholar,  and 
the  wag — ever  wrote,  said,  or  did.  That  poor  monk  gained  a 
greater  and  more  difficult  victory  than  that  of  the  orator,  states- 
man, or  warrior.  He  conquered  himself.  The  witty  writings 
of  Sterne  may  excite  the  admiration  of  men  ;  but  the  noble  ex- 
ample of  that  poor  monk  excites  the  deep  and  intense  love  of 
pure  and  holy  hearts.  And  what  tribute  of  praise  can  equal  the 
free,  unbribed  gushings  of  pure  love  ?  And  whatever  may  be 
the  opinio*  of  others,  I  unhesitatingly  say  for  myself,  that  I 
would  rather  be  like  that  poor  monk,  than  to  attain  all  the  glory 
of  all  the  wits  who  have  ever  left,  or  ever  will  leave,  their  names 
to  undying  fame.  O !  that  I  could  gain  such  a  victory  over 
myself. 

But  these  holy  contemplative  orders  have  done  more  than 
by  their  example.  Who  copied  the  Scriptures  before  the  art 
of  printing  was  discovered  ?  Who  preserved  the  learned  works 
of  the  Greek  and  Roman  historians,  statesmen,  orators,  and 
poets  ?  Did  they  not  do  it  ?  And  who  have  composed  the  no- 
blest works  of  piety  ever  written,  except  the  Divine  Scriptures  ? 
Who  composed  those  inimitable  works,  "The  Imitation  of 
Christ "  and  "  The  Spiritual  Combat,"  not  to  mention  others, 
but  members  of  the  monastic  orders  ?  The  authors  of  those 
works  were  men  who  had  also  gained  the  great  victory.  They 
had  that  "  refinement  of  body  and  mind."  The  author  of  the 
"  Imitation  of  Christ "  was  severely  slandered ;  but  he  submitted 
in  patience,  and  asked,  "  What  are  words  but  words  ?  They 
fly  through  the  air,  and  hurt  not  a  stone."  * 

*  Charles  Butler,  in  his  account  of  the  lite  and  writings  of  the  Rev.  Alban 


4:08  EFFECTS    OF   THE   CATHOLIC    SYSTEM. 

And  what  works  have  been  composed  by  men  mixing  with 
the  world,  that  can  equal  these  in  deep  Christian  learning  and 
sweet  humility  ?  The  nearest  approach  to  them  by  any  Prot- 
estant writer,  so  far  as  my  knowledge  extends,  is  the  work  of 

Butler,  who  was  esteemed  the  most  learned  man  in  Europe,  and  yet  one  of  the 
most  humble  and  pious,  says  : 

"  Our  author  was  not  so  warm  on  any  subject  as  the  calumnies  against  the 
religious  of  the  Middle  Age :  he  considered"  the  civilization  of  Europe  to  be 
owing  to  them.  When  they  were  charged  with  idleness,  he  used  to  remark  the 
immense  tracts  of  land  which,  from  the  rudest  state  of  nature,  they  converted  to 
a  high  state  of  husbandry  in  the  Hercynian  wood,  the  forests  of  Champagne  and 
Burgundy,  the  morasses  of  Holland,  and  the  fens  of  Lincolnshire  and  Cambridge- 
shire. When  ignorance  was  imputed  to  them,  he  used  to  ask,  what  author  of 
antiquity  had  reached  us  for  whose  works  we  were  not  indebted  to  the  monks. 
He  could  less  endure  that  they  should  be  considered  as  instruments  of  absolute 
power  to  enslave  the  people :  when  this  was  intimated,  he  observed  that,  during 
the  period  which  immediately  followed  the  extinction  of  the  Carlovingian  dynas- 
ty, when  the  feudal  law  absolutely  triumphed  over  monarchy,  the  people  were 
wholly  left  to  themselves,  and  must  have  sunk  into  a  state  of  absolute  barbarism 
if  it  had  not  been  for  the  religious  establishments.  These,  he  said,  softened  the 
manners  of  the  conquerors,  afforded  refuge  to  the  vanquished,  preierved  an  inter- 
course between  nations,  and,  when  the  feudal  chiefs  rose  to  the  rank  of  mon- 
sirchs,  stood  as  a  rampart  between  them  and  the  people.  He  thought  St.  Thomas 
of  Canterbury  a  much  injured  character.  He  often  pointed  out  that  rich  tract 
of  country,  which  extends  from  St.  Omer's  to  Liege,  as  a  standing  refutation  of 
those  who  asserted  that  convents  and  monasteries  were  inimical  to  the  populous- 
ness  of  a  country  :  he  observed  that  the  whole  income  of  the  smaller  houses,  and 
two-thirds  of  the  revenues  of  the  greater  houses,  were  constantly  spent  within 
twenty  miles  round  their  precincts  ;  that  their  lands  were  universally  let  at  low 
rents ;  that  every  abbey  had  a  school  for  the  instruction  of  its  tenants,  and  that 
no  human  institution  was  so  well  calculated  to  promote  the  arts  of  painting, 
architecture,  and  sculpture,  works  in  iron  and  bronze,  and  every  other  species  of 
workmanship,  as  abbeys  or  monasteries,  and  their  appendages.  '  Thus,'  he  used  to 
say,  '  though  the  country  in  view  was  originally  a  marsh,  and  has  for  more  than 
a  century  wholly  survived  its  commerce,  it  is  the  most  populous  country  in  Eu- 
rope; and  presents  on  the  face  of  it  as  great  a  display  of  public  and  private 
strength,  wealth,  and  affluence,  as  can  be  found  in  any  other  part  of  the 
world.'  " 

The  libraries  attached  to  these  institutions  were  extensive.  Thus  Digby 
says: 

"  The  library  of  the  Abbey  of  Cluny,  before  the  Protestants  pillaged  and 
burnt  it  in  the  sixteenth  century,  was  deemed  one  of  the  wonders  of  the  world ; 
und,  in  fact,  it  equalled  that  of  the  emperors  at  Constantinople."  (Ages  of  Faith 
Book  x.,  chap,  ix.) 


EFFECTS    OFF   THE   CATHOLIC    SYSTEM.  409 

John  Bunyan,  "  The  Pilgrim's  Progress ; "  and  if  I  remember 
well,  this  was  written  in  prison,  while  the  author's  mind  and 
soul  were  abstracted  from  the  cares  of  earth.  Who  does  not 
feel  the  advantages,  and  even  necessity,  of  such  abstraction  from 
temporal  cares,  when  writing  upon  such  holy  subjects  ? 

In  these  abodes  of  poverty  and  peace,  the  pious  and  con- 
templative spirit  can  indulge  her  emotions  undisturbed  by  the 
warring  elements  of  the  outside  world.  The  great  Dr.  Johnson 
had  some  beautiful  conceptions  of  the  peace  of  such  a  state.* 

*  "  Many,"  says  Dr.  Johnson,  u  are  weary  of  their  conflicts  with  adversity, 
and  are  willing  tp  eject  those  passions  which  have  long  busied  them  in  vain  ;  and 
many  are  dismissed  by  age  and  diseases  from  the  more  laborious  duties  of  soci- 
ety. In  monasteries  the  weak  and  timorous  may  be  happily  sheltered,  the  weary 
may  repose,  and  the  penitent  may  meditate.  These  retreats  of  prayer  and  con- 
templation have  something  so  congenial  to  the  mind  of  man,  that  perhaps  there 
is  scarcely  one  that  does  not  purpose  to  close  his  life  in  pious  abstraction,  with  a 
few  associates,  serious  as  himself.''  Again :  "  Whatever  is  done  by  the  monks, 
is  incited  by  an  adequate  motive.  Their  time  is  regularly  distributed ;  one  dutv 
succeeds  another,  so  that  they  are  not  left  open  to  the  distraction  of  unguided 
choice,  nor  lost  in  the  shades  of  listless  inactivity.  There  is  a  certain  task  to  be 
performed  at  an  appropriate  hour ;  and  their  toils  are  cheerful,  because  they  con- 
sider them  as  acts  of  piety,  by  which  they  are  always  advancing  towards  endless 
felicity."  (Johnson's  Rasselas.) 

It  must  be  conceded  by  persons  of  experience  and  observant  disposition,  that 
it  often  occurs  that  the  spirits  of  individuals  are  totally  broken  by  a  concurrence 
of  misfortunes,  until  they  are  unfit  for  the  active  duties  of  life,  and  become  tired 
of  the  world.  In  such  a  case  there  is  only  one  of  two  retreats  offered — a  monas- 
tery, or  the  modern  remedy  of  suicide.  The  emotions  with  which  the  victim  of 
disappointment  would  retire  from  the  world,  were  feelingly  expressed  by  Wolsey : 
"  0  father  abbot,  an  old  man,  broken  by  the  storms  of  state,  is  come  to  lay  his 
weary  bones  among  you ;  give  him  a  little  earth  for  charity." 

"  A  good  society,"  says  a  French  author,  "  provides  for  every  thing,  even  for 
the  wants  of  those  who  detach  themselves  from  it  by  choice  or  by  necessity." 

A  great  French  philosopher  lias  also  said  : 

"  Let  us  grant  to  virtue  that  right  of  asylum  which  crime  had  formerly. 
There  are  always  upon  earth  men  who  are  fatigued  with  life's  journey,  and  nc 
one  can  be  sure  that  some  day  or  other  he  will  not  be  of  their  number."  (Cited 
Ages  of  Faith,  Book  x.,  c.  iii.) 

And  Mabillon,  as  cited  by  the  eloquent  Digby,  in  his  great  work,  "  Ages  of 
Faith,"  has  these  beautiful  remarks  : 

"  For  who  is  there  that  has  a  just  sense  of  Christian  piety,  and  who  examines 
the  thing  before  God,  but  must  esteem  those  men  very  useful  to  the  Church  who 
endeavor  to  conform  assiduously  to  the  life  of  Christ ;  wh  >  cultivate  the  worship 


410  EFFECTS   OF   THE   CATHOLIC    SYSTEM. 

§  7.  The  active  orders  of  the  Church. 

But  the  contemplative  orders  are  not  the  only  orders  of  the 
Church.  There  are  many  active  and  laborious  orders,  who  give 
their  whole  lives  for  the  benefit  of  others,  without  any  regard 
to  the  religion,  name,  or  class  of  the  sufferers.  And  these  ac- 
tive orders,  since  the  discovery  of  the  art  of  printing,  are  greater 
in  proportion  than  they  were  formerly.  Among  the  active 
orders,  I  may  mention  the  Jesuits,  the  Monks  of  St.  Bernard, 
and  the  Monks  of  La  Trappe.  Also  the  Sisters  of  Notre-Dame, 
the  Sisters  of  the  Sacred  Heart,  the  Sisters  of  Mercy,  and  the 
Sisters  of  Charity.  They  have  different  disciplinary  rules  ;  and 
while  some  confine  their  attention  mostly  to  teaching,  others 
are  found  in  the  hospital,  by  the  side  of  the  sick  and  dying. 

The  sublime  and  simple  example  of  these  orders,  especially 
those  of  the  Sisters  of  Mercy  and  the  Sisters  of  Charity,  is 
"far  more  touching  than  the  outpourings  of  eloquence,  however 
lofty."  And  it  is  not  only  so,  because  their  duties  are  the  most 
laborious  and  humiliating,  the  most  gloomy  and  melancholy, 
and  the  most  dangerous,  but  because  they  are  performed  so 
silently  and  unostentatiously.  Silently  they  pray — silently  they 
smooth  the  brow  of  death,  and  sweetly  they  point  the  dying 
vision  to  the  upper  sky.  They  ask  no  meed  of  praise.  They 
seek  no  approving  eye,  but  that  of  Him  "  whose  eye  is  on  the 
heart."  "  They  are  more  exposed  to  the  world  than  members 
of  a  religious  order,  having,  in  most  instances,  no  other  monas- 

of  God  with  all  the  devotion  of  which  they  are  capahle,  offering  their  body  and 
soul  as  a  constant  sacrifice  of  praise ;  who  retain  the  ancient  vestiges  and  speci- 
men of  Christian  penitence  in  the  Church  ;  who  opened  public  schools  of  virtue  ; 
who,  by  their  labor,  transmitted  the  monuments  of  ancient  writing  to  posterity ; 
who  gave  example  to  clerks  to  institute  laudable  societies ;  who  erected  as  many 
hospitals  for  the  poor  as  monasteries,  in  which  diseases  of  the  soul  were  cured, 
in  which  baptismal  innocence  was  preserved  inviolate,  or  restored  when  lost,  and 
in  which  the  wants  of  all  the  needy  are  supplied  ?  Monasteries  are  hostels,  in 
which  not  alone  the  cloistral  flock,  but,  as  Leodegavius  testifies,  the  whole  world 
is  delivered  from  the  corruptions  of  the  age.  Finally,  who  can  say  that  they 
were  useless  to  ths  civil  and  Christian  republic,  who  covered  with  towns  and  vil- 
lages so  many  provinces  before  uninhabited  and  desert,  adorned  them  with  edi. 
fices,  enriched  them  with  letters,  and,  by  giving  episcopal  and  pastoral  institu- 
tions, brought  so  many  millions  of  pagans  to  the  faith  ?  n  (B.  x.,  c.  iii.) 


EFFECTS  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  SYSTEM.          411 

tery  than  the  houses  of  the  sick  or  school-room,  no  other  cell 
than  a  rented  apartment,  no  other  chapel  than  the  parish 
church,  no  cloister  but  the  public  street  or  hospital,  no  inclo- 
sure  but  obedience,  no  grate  but  the  fear  of  God,  no  veil  but 
that  of  holy  modesty." 

These  devoted  Sisters  know  no  race,  no  color,  no  creed, 
and  no  condition  in  the  objects  of  their  labors.  They  know  no 
geographical  lines  but  those  of  suffering  humanity.  Wherever 
distress  and  suffering  appear,  there  they  are  found.  When  the 
craven  minister  flies  from  his  afflicted  flock — when  the  brother 
deserts  his  dying  sister,  and  the  father  his  plague-stricken  child, 
in  their  flight  they  meet  the  Sisters  making  their  hasty  way  to 
the  abandoned  scenes  of  death  and  sorrow.  They  seek  those 
melancholy  scenes  from  which  others  flee.  Their  joy  is  to  die 
in  the  discharge  of  their  duty.  They  heed  not  the  aspersions 
cast  upon  their  faith.  As  they  blush  at  fame,  and  shrink  from 
praise,  like  the  "  man  of  sorrows,"  they  are  silent  under  impu- 
tations and  calumnies.  The  praise  they  receive  is  voluntarily 
bestowed  upon  the  order  by  others.  Their  individual  names, 
as  their  individual  deeds,  are  unknown.  Each  Sister  wears  out 
her  life  in  labors  of  charity — lives  at  all  times  prepared  to  die, 
and  when  death  does  come, 

"  Steals  from  the  world,  and  not  a  stone 
Tells  where  she  lies." 

Her  name,  her  virtues,  and  her  deeds  are  forgotten.  And  be- 
cause no  monument  and  no  chronicle  perpetuates  her  individual 
deeds,  we  are  not  to  suppose  from  this,  that  she  possessed  no 
individual  merits  of  the  highest  order ;  for  in  this  world,  monu- 
ments are  "  often  raised  without  merit,  and  lost  without  a 
crime."  The  unknown  and  unchronicled  Sister,  who  sleeps  in 
an  humble  grave,  possessed  an  intrepid  soul,  and 

"  A  heart  once  pregnant  with  celestial  fire." 
Her  virtues,  though  inflexible,  were  yet  as  gentle  and  beautiful 

"  As  the  ling'ring  beam,  that  eve's  decline 
Will  paint  on  the  vanishing  day." 

But  are  not  the  devoted  members  of  all  these  orders  wild 


412  EFFECTS   OF   THE   CATHOLIC    SYSTEM 

enthusiasts?  They  are  enthusiasts,  but  not  wild  enthusiasts. 
It  is  the  intense,  yet  calm,  persevering  enthusiasm  of  Christianity. 
For  it  is  one  of  the  most  beautiful  and  rational  traits  of  the 
Catholic  Church,  that  the  enthusiasm  of  her  children  is  A  REGU- 
LATED ENTHUSIASM.  It  is  not  that  ungovernable  mountain  t<3r- 
rent  that  overflows  the  cultivated  plain  below ;  but  it  is  that 
unfailing  steady  stream,  which  does  riot  rise  too  high  with  fresh- 
ets, nor  descend  too  low  from  droughts,  but  in  its  gentle  course, 
fertilizes,  without  deluging,  the  country  through  which  it  passes. 
There  is  every  motive  in  the  Catholic  Church  to  excite  the  zeal 
of  her  children,  and  every  thing  to  keep  down  fanaticism.  The 
most  zealous  souls  in  her  communion  are  taught  discipline  and 
humility.  The  great  and  voluntary  sacrifices  made  by  the 
members  of  these  orders  are  the  legitimate  results  of  the  abid- 
ing conviction  they  have  of  the  truth  of  Christianity.  For  as 
certain  as  Christianity  is  true,  so  certain  is  it  that  the  saints  in 
glory  will  differ  from  each  other  as  the  stars  of  heaven,  and  that 
this  difference  will  be  in  proportion  to  the  difference  of  their 
course  on  earth.  The  perfect  Christian  must  then  inherit  an  in- 
creased  glory ;  and  this  increase,  is  surely  worth  every  possible 
sacrifice  that  we  can  make  on  earth.  Those  holy  souls  who 
give  all  their  lives,  not  to  the  practice  of  display,  but  to  the 
practice  of  "  solid  virtues,"  as  St.  Jane  Francis  de  Chantal  has 
it,  without  the  intention  of  gaining  personal  fame  or  distinction, 
must  surely  legitimately  fill  the  counsels  of  perfection,  if  any 
such  were  given. 

In  the  Catholic  Church  all  her  children  are  under  her  disci- 
pline. Whatever  enthusiasm  they  may  possess  cannot  go  be- 
yond the  limits  fixed  by  the  Church.  Their  enthusiasm  cannot 
degenerate  into  fanaticism.  But  it  cannot  be  so  under  the 
Protestant  rule  of  private  interpretation.  There  are  no  limits 
to  the  fanaticism  of  the  Protestant  enthusiast,  but  the  mind  of 
the  enthusiast  himself.  In  vain  will  you  prescribe  limits,  when 
you  have  no  right  to  prescribe.  The  enthusiast  defeats  you 
upon  your  own  principle.  And  it  is  mainly  owing  to  this  erro- 
neous fundamental  principle  that  Protestants  cannot  organize 
and  sustain  any  religious  orders.  Their  charitable  efforts  are 
undisciplined,  unsteady,  and  limited  for  that  reason!  Under 
such  a  principle  there  could  not  exist  such  an  order  as  the  Sis- 


EFFKCTS   OF   THE   CATHOLIC    SYSTEM.  4:13 

ters  of  Charity,  without  a  violation  of  the  fundamental  rule. 
There  could  be  no  continued  unity  of  effort,  because  there  could 
exist  no  obedience  to  one  superior. 

§  8.   Charges  against  these  orders  considered. 

In  reference  to  the  general  charges  of  delinquency,  so  often 
made  by  their  enemies  against  these  orders  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  I  could  not  believe  them,  after  examination  and  reflec- 
tion, for  these  reasons : 

1.  Assuming,  for  the  sake  of  the  argument  only,  that  these 
orders  are  as  devoted  and  faithful  as  they  are  generally  believed 
to  be  by  Catholics,  such  calumnies  would  naturally  follow  such 
superior  virtue.     It  is  in  the  nature  of  Christian  perfection,  that 
it  should  be  envied,  calumniated,  and  despised,  by  those  who 
cannot  or  will  not  attain  it. 

2.  The  sacrifices  these  orders  are  known  to  make,  are  so 
much  greater  than  those  their  enemies  do  make,  that  the  only 
possible  plan  of  putting  them  upon  any  thing  like  an  equality,  is 
to  accuse  the  members  of  these  orders  of  secret  sins.     When- 
ever that  most  just  and  salutary  principle  of  law,  that  a  man 
must  be  presumed  innocent  until  he  is  proved  guilty,  is  set 
aside,  then  human  virtue  cannot  be  known  to  exist  in  this 
world ;  for  no  man  can  prove  a  negative,  and  show  that  he 
never  did  commit  any  crime.     He  may  sometimes  do  so,  by 
proving  an  alibi  in  reference  to  a  particular  charge  of  an  act  al- 
leged to  have  been  committed  at  a  specified  time  and  place. 
But  as  to  general  charges,  no  one  can  prove  a  negative.     Ifj 
therefore,  the  mind  can  be  induced  to  believe  charges  of  secret 
sins  without  proof,  there  is  no  limit  to  such  belief  but  the  preju- 
dices, interests,  and  passions  of  men  ;  and  these  have  few  limits, 
if  any. 

3.  These  charges  were  too  wholesale,  and  therefore  upon 
their  face  the  more  incredible.     And  unless  they  were  of  this 
wholesale  character,  they  could  not  have  any  force,  if  true, 
against  the  entire  orders  themselves.     It  became  apparent  to 
me,  that  such  gross  and  continued  wickedness  could  not  exist  in 
so  large  bodies  of  persons,  without  all  knowing  it  who  lived  to- 
gether in  the  same  convent.     And  if  all  knew  it,  and  it  was 
general  in  all  the  convents,  it  certainly  constituted  a  wonderful 


414  EFFECTS   OF   THE   CATHOLIC    SYSTEM. 

example  of  the  combination  of  the  most  degraded  vices  with  the 
most  devoted  and  self- sacrificing  virtues,  in  the  same  persons. 
And  what  was  most  astonishing  was  this :  that  their  published 
rules  and  public  practices,  showing  the  labors  and  sacrifices  the 
members  must  endure,  would  certainly  only  attract  the  most 
pious  and  heroic  ;  and  how  they  could  become  so  soon  converted 
from  saints  to  vile  prostitutes  and  debauchees,  is  what  I  could 
not  quite  understand.  In  all  my  reading  and  observation,  I  had 
never  heard  of  prostitutes  and  debauchees  loving  poverty  and 
hard  work,  humility  and  danger.  From  Benedict  Arnold  down 
to  the  meanest  rogue,  without  scarcely  an  exception,  all  unprin- 
cipled persons  are  fond  of  wallowing  in  luxury  and  dissipation. 
And  it  may  be  said  of  all  persons  who  look  to  this  world  alone 
for  their  enjoyments,  that  they  are  devoted  to  the  good  things 
of  life.  As  the  Infidel  Mirabeau,  on  his  death-bed,  said,  in  sub- 
stance :  "  Cover  me  with  flowers — smother  me  with  sweet  per- 
> fumes — and  let  me  die  amidst  the  strains  of  delicious  music." 
The  almost  only,  if  not  the  only  exception,  is  the  senseless  miser, 
who  hoards  without  an  object,  and  lives  without  an  aim.  That 
base  sensuality,  that  would  make  the  Sisters  prostitutes,  and  the 
monks  debauchees,  would  forever  unfit  them  for  the  exercise  of 
those  sublime  virtues,  and  the  exhibition  of  that  noble  courage 
for  the  relief  of  others,  that  we  do  know  them  to  possess.  Can 
these  opposite  traits  be  put  together,  and  kept  there  ? 

4.  The  ranks  of  these  orders  are  continually  filled,  as  is  well 
known,  by  great  numbers  of  persons  from  the  very  best  ranks 
of  society — persons  possessed  of  wealth,  education,  and  of  every 
worldly  advantage.     These  persons  voluntarily  forsake  all  for 
the  kingdom  of  heaven's  sake.     And  can  such  be  insincere? 
Can  such  be  vile  ?     If  so,  where  can  superior  virtue  be  found  ? 
And  what  can  be  its  evidence  ? 

5.  The  most  candid  and  reliable,  impartial  and  just  Protes- 
tant historians  and  theologians  do  not  believe  these  wholesale 
charges.      For  instance,   Waddington  the  Protestant,   quoted 
with  so  much  approbation  by  Mr.  Campbell,  says,  among  other 
things : 

"  Of  the  more  modern  orders,  there  is  also  one  which  may 
seem  to  require  our  notice — that  of  the  Ursulines.  Its  origin 
is  ascribed  to  Angela  de  Brescia,  about  the  year  153*7,  though 


EFFECTS    OF    THE    CATHOLIC    SYSTEM.  415 

the  saint  from  whom  it  received  its  name,  Ursula  Beiiincasa,  a 
native  of  Naples,  was  born  ten  years  afterwards.  Its  character 
was  peculiar,  and  recalls  our  attention  to  the  primitive  form  of 
ascetic  devotion.  The  duties  of  these  holy  Sisters  were  the 
purest  within  the  circle  of  human  benevolence — to  minister  to 
the  sick,  to  relieve  the  poor,  to  console  the  miserable,  to  pray 
with  the  penitent.  These  charitable  offices  they  undertook  to 
execute  without  the  bond  of  any  community,  without  the  obli- 
gation of  any  monastic  vow,  without  any  separation  from  society, 
any  renouncement  of  their  domestic  duties  and  virtues.  And. 
so  admirably  were  those  offices,  in  millions  of  instances,  per- 
formed, that  had  all  other  female  orders  been  really  as  useless 
and  vicious  as  they  are  sometimes  falsely  described  to  be,  the 
virtues  of  the  Ursulines  had  alone  been  sufficient  to  redeem  the 
monastic  name. 

"  But  it  is  very  far  from  true,  that  these  other  orders  were 
either  commonly  dissolute  or  generally  useless.  Occasional 
scandals  have  engendered  universal  calumnies."  (Wadding- 
ton's  Church  History,  325  ;  N.  Y.  Ed.,  1835.) 

How  concisely  and  beautifully  Waddington  states  a  great 
truth.  "  Occasional  scandals  have  engendered  universal  calum- 
nies." 

How  true  it  is,  that  the  prejudiced,  the  ignorant,  and  the 
idle,  are  prone  to  draw  wholesale  conclusions,  from  single  in- 
stances. If  one  man  is  dishonest,  all  men  must  be  so.  If  one 
man  may  be  bribed,  all  men  may  be  bought.  If  one  man  can- 
not or  will  not  control  his  passions,  of  course  all  others  must  be 
like  him.  It  one  will  lie,  all  must  lie. 

But  in  reference  to  the  Mendicant  orders,  the  same  historian, 
among  other  things,  said : 

"  It  is  not  without  reason  that  the  Roman  Catholic  writers 
vaunt  the  disinterestedness  of  the  early  Mendicants — how  assid- 
uous they  were  in  supplying  the  spiritual  wants  of  the  poor,  how 
frequent  in  prisons  and  in  hospitals,  how  forward  to  encounter 
the  fire  or  the  pestilence ;  how  instant  on  all  these  occasions 
where  the  peril  was  imminent,  and  the  reward  not  in  this  world. 
They  were  equally  distinguished  in  other,  and  not  less  righteous, 
duty,  the  propagation  of  Christianity  among  remote  and  savage 
nations."  After  alluding  to  different  missions,  the  historian 


416  EFFECTS    OF    THE    CATHOLIC    SYSTEM. 

says  :  "  It  is  certain  that  the  number  of  Christians  was  not  in- 
considerable, both  among  the  Chinese  and  Moguls,  as  late  as 
the  year  1370,  and  they  were  still  increasing,  when  they  were 
suddenly  swept  away  and  almost  wholly  exterminated  by  the 
Mahometan  arms.  Howbeit,  the  disastrous  overthrow  of  their 
establishment  detracts  nothing  from  the  merit  of  those  who  con- 
structed it ;  and  it  must  not  be  forgotten,  that  the  instruments 
in  this  work  were  Mendicants,  and,  for  the  most  part,  Francis- 
cans." (Wad.  His.,  547.) 

There  is  a  beautiful  testimony  to  the  devotion  and  courage 
of  the  Catholic  clergy,  in  Lieutenant  Gibson's  Report  of  his  tour 
through  Peru,  page  7. 

"  There  is  no  part  of  Peru,"  he  says,  "  which  is  more  densely 
populated  than  the  valley  of  Juaga.  There,  close  under  the 
mountains,  on  the  east  side,  stands  the  town  of  Ocopa,  with  its 
convents  and  schools.  From  that  place  missionaries  have 
branched  off  in  different  directions  to  the  forests  in  the  east,  at 
great  risk  of  life,  and  loss  of  all  its  comforts,  to  teach  the  savage 
red  man  how  to  change  his  manners,  customs,  and  belief.  Some 
have  succeeded,  others  have  failed,  and  were  murdered  or 
driven  back  by  the  battle-axe  ;  their  settlements  destroyed  by 
fire,  and  years  of  labor  lost ;  yet  some  never  tire." 

The  eloquent  Senator  from  Virginia,  Hon.  R.  M.  T.  Hunter, 
in  a  speech  made  in  1855,  in  Virginia,  uses  this  chaste  and 
touching  language : 

"  Deprive,"  said  he,  "  the  Catholics  of  all  the  offices,  bar 
them  out  from  every  avenue  to  political  distinction,  deny  to 
them  the  opportunities  which  you  accord  to  Infidels  and  Athe- 
ists ;  and  when  you  have  done  it  all,  when  you  have  placed  their 
honest  ambition  to  enjoy  the  honors  and  emoluments  of  political 
preferment  under  the  ban  of  a  ruthless  proscription,  your  work 
is  not  yet  finished.  There  will  still  remain  offices  for  them. 
Yes,  my  friends,  the  sweet  offices  of  Christian  love  will  still  be 
left,  and  in  the  midst  of  your  persecutions,  their  bishops  and 
priests,  as  in  the  recent  pestilence  in  your  Southern  cities,  will 
throng  the  hospitals  and  pest-houses,  bringing  succor  and  con- 
solation to  the  poor  victims  of  the  plague.  Aye,  and  their  Sis- 
ters of  Charity  will  still  brave  the  terrors  of  loathsome  and  in- 
fectious disease,  will  still  wioe  the  death  damp  from  the  suffering 


EFFECTS  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  SYSTEM.          417 

brow,  will  still  venture  in  where  the  courage  of  man  shrinks 
back  appalled,  and  will  point  the  dying  gaze  through  the  myste- 
rious gloom  of  the  Valley  of  the  Shadow  of  Death,  to  the  Cross 
and  the  Crucified." 

I  will  also  quote  from  a  late  able  and  manly  letter,  written 
by  Judge  Longstreet,  a  distinguished  and  worthy  member  of  the 
Methodist  Church.  Speaking  to  the  Methodist  preachers  of  the 
Catholics,  the  Judge  says : 

"  To  hate  their  religion  is  to  hate  youc  own  religion,  which 
they  adorn,  just  at  this  time,  much  more  than  you  do.  '  No 
man  that  warreth,'  says  Paul,  '  encumbereth  himself  with  the 
affairs  of  this  life.'  The  Catholic  priest  obeys  this  precept 
strictly.  But  where  are  you — some  of  you,  at  least  ?  Candi- 
dates for  this,  that,  and  the  other  office — going  from  beat  to 
beat,  and  county  to  county,  stumping  it  for  votes — haranguing 
the  multitude  amidst  thumps,  and  screams,  and  yells — firing  at 
opposition,  and  almost  coming  to  blows — telling  vulgar  anec- 
dotes— suppressing  truth — encouraging,  if  not  spreading  false- 
hood. These  things  are  not  done  in  a  corner  ;  and  yet,  if  any 
Bishop,  any  Elder,  any  Deacon,  any  brother,  any  press  of  our 
church,  has  raised  a  warning  voice  against  them,  except  my 
poor  solitary  self,  and  one  old  brother  more,  I  have  yet  to  learn 
who,  when,  or  where.  From  the  holiest  chamber  of  my  soul,  I 
lift  a  prayer  to  God  to  have  mercy  upon  us,  and  save  our 
church  from  degradation  and  ruin.  Brethren,  I  am  not  near 
done  with  you,  but  I  must  stop.  My  powers  of  calm  discussion 
are  suspended.  My  heart  and  my  eyes  take  up  the  cause  of 
my  perilled  church,  in  utterances  which  you  might  appre- 
ciate, but  which  I  cannot  expose  to  the  ridicule  of  an  unfeeling 
world." 

There  is  a  melancholy  vein  of  truth  and  sincerity  running 
through  this  extract,  that  cannot  be  mistaken.  But  the  state 
of  things  so  feelingly  deplored  by  the  Judge,  must  inevitably 
flow  from  the  theory  of  Protestantism,  sooner  or  later.  It  is 
one  of  the  legitimate  results.  Let  any  one  read  the  history  of 
the  Protestant  churches  from  the  days  of  Luther  down  to  this 
time,  and  he  will  find  the  same  decline  of  the  apostolic  spirit. 
New  Reformations  will  be  constantly  required.  What  Wesley 
37 


418  EFFECTS    OF   THE    CATHOLIC    SYSTEM. 

did  for  the  Church  of  England,  some  one  else  will  have,  sooner 
or  later,  to  do  for  the  Methodists. 

In  reference  to  the  great  mass  of  Protestants  and  Catholics, 
the  difference  between  their  observable  conduct  as  Christians  may 
not  be  great,  and  may  be  very  similar.  I  bear  a  most  cheerful 
testimony  to  the  personal  piety  of  great  numbers  of  Protestants 
with  whom  I  have  associated.  So  far  as  practical  morality  is 
concerned — that  which  regulates  our  conduct  as  citizens  and 
neighbors — I  have  jiot  found  much  difference  among  men  of 
any  denomination.  I  have  found  the  qualities  of  kindness,  so- 
briety, and  integrity,  among  many  unbelievers,  in  a  great  de- 
gree of  perfection.  So  far  as  the  practice  of  that  morality  is 
concerned  which  renders  men  happy  in  a  state  of  society,  and 
prosperous  as  a  community  in  this  world,  I  apprehend  there  is 
no  very  marked  difference  among  professed  Christians  of  differ- 
ent denominations. 

But  the  system  of  Christianity  has  a  design  beyond  this.  It 
looks  not  alone  to  man's  happiness  here.  Virtues  that  alone 
produce  an  improved  state  of  society,  are  not  the  principal  ob- 
jects of  the  system.  Dr.  Paley  admits  "  that  the  teaching  of 
morality  was  not  the  primary  design  of  the  mission  "  of  Christ. 
In  another  place  he  says :  "  For  however  the  care  of  reputation, 
the  authority  of  public  opinion,  or  even  of  the  opinion  of  good 
men,  the  satisfaction  of  being  well  received,  and  well  thought 
of,  the  benefit  of  being  known  and  distinguished,  are  topics  to 
which  we  are  fain  to  have  recourse  in  our  exhortations  ;  the  true 
virtue -is  that  which  discards  these  considerations  absolutely, 
and  which  retires  from  them  all  to  the  single  internal  purpose 
of  pleasing  God."  (Ev.  Ch.) 

This  is  certainly  a  beautiful  Christian  sentiment,  a&  oeauti- 
fully  and  forcibly  expressed.  The  temporal  considerations  al- 
luded to  are  certainly  such  as  may  be  urged  upon  men  in  socie- 
ty, with  equal  force,  whether  Christianity  be  true  or  false.  They 
are  worldly  and  temporal  motives,  addressed  to  present  interest 
and  aspirations ;  and  are  not  calculated  to  inculcate  the  true 
spirit  of  Christianity.  Did  Christ,  or  Paul,  or  Peter,  ever  urge 
such  motives  ?  In  vain  may  we  look  in  the  New  Testament 
for  any  such  reasons  in  support  of  the  Gospel.  And  the  great 
truth  stated  by  the  lear.»v»^  divine,  that  Protestants  are  "  fain  U 


EFFECTS    OF   THE   CATHOLIC    SYSTEM.  419 

have  recourse  in  their  exhortations"  to  such  topics,  is,  to  my 
mind,  a  very  great  and  serious  objection  to  their  theory,  and 
does  show  the  inevitable  worldly  tendency  of  their  fundamental 
rule.  And  if  we  look  into  Protestant  works — their  sermons, 
addresses,  and  especially  their  arguments  in  support  of  their 
theory — we  shall  find  the  general  drift  and  spirit  of  the  great 
majority  of  them  conformable  with  these  temporal  considera- 
tions. In  a  system  like  Christianity,  where  both  faith  and  works 
— good  motives  as  well  as  good  actions — are  required ;  to  urge 
such  reasons  upon  men,  and  especially  upon  Christians,  is  to 
lower  and  debase  the  system  itself,  and  to  ruin  and  destroy  the 
souls  of  men.  "  The  single  internal  purpose  of  pleasing  God," 
and  thus  meriting  the  future  rewards,  and  escaping  the  future 
punishments,  promised  and  denounced  in  the  Gospel,  should 
constitute  the  true  motive  that  actuates  the  humble  Christian. 

The  blessed  Paul  said,  that  without  charity  he  was  nothing ; 
and  the  same  apostle  also  said,  that  without  faith  it  was  impos- 
sible to  please  God.  In  the  contemplation  of  Christianity  a  man 
must  not  only  do  justice  to  his  neighbor,  but  he  must  also  have 
faith  and  humility.  Practical  morality  alone  will  never,  there- 
fore, constitute  the  whole  Christian  character.  There  must  be 
deep  humility ;  and  this  virtue  is  much  more  rare  among  Prot- 
estants than  Catholics,  so  far  as  my  means  of  information  have 
enabled  me  to  judge. 

The  Samaritans  who  adored  in  the  mountain,  where  they 
had  their  schisinatical  temple,  were  distinguished  for  their  hos- 
pitality. So  great  was  their  character  for  hospitality,  that  a 
Roman  Emperor  erected  a  statue  in  their  city  to  the  hospitable 
Jupiter,  in  conformity,  says  an  ancient  historian,  to  the  genius 
of  the  nation.  And  so  remarkable  were  they  for  their  charity, 
that  when  our  Saviour  wished  to  illustrate  this  great  virtue,  he 
gave  the  parable  of  the  Good  Samaritan.  But  still,  with  all 
their  virtues,  they  were  not  good  and  complete  models  of  the 
true  worshipper  of  God.  For  Christ  did  not  hesitate  to  tell 
the  Samaritan  woman  at  the  well :  "  Ye  worship  ye  know  not 
what :  we  know  what  we  worship :  for  salvation  is  of  the  Jews." 
(John  iv.  22.) 

No  doubt  these  virtues  of  hospitality  and  charity  were  even 
more  prevalent  among  the  Samaritans  than  among  the  Jews. 


420  EFFECTS    OF   THE   CATHOLIC    SYSTEM. 

But  with  all  their  amiable  characteristics,  they  never  could  pro- 
duce such  examples  of  holiness  as  Simeon,  the  prophetess  Anna, 
and  others  among  the  Jews.  I  suppose  that  if  all  the  virtaes  of 
the  Samaritans  had  been  concentrated  in  a  single  person,  that 
such  individual  could  not  have  compared  with  the  holy  Simeon 


CHAPTER   XL 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  PRIVATE  INTERPRETATION  INCOM- 
PATIBLE WITH  ALL  UNION  AND  GOVERNMENT  IN  THE 
CHURCH. 

§  1.  The  alleged  right  of  appeal  to  the  Day  of  Judgment. 

WHILE  inquiring  for  the  true  Church,  I  found  the  different 
Protestant  sects,  each  acting  alone  for  itself,  under  separate  and 
independent  organizations,  and  each  assuming,  at  least  in  form, 
to  exercise  certain  powers  of  government  over  its  own  mem- 
bers. They  generally  recognized  the  principle,  that  both  faith 
and  works  were  required  by  the  law  of  Christ.  And  in  so  far 
as  they  assumed  to  exercise  any  powers  of  government,  they 
assumed  to  do  so,  in  virtue  of  this  law.  They,  therefore,  pro- 
fessed to  enforce  all  .those  provisions  of  this  code,  in  reference 
both  to  faith  and  works,  intended  to  be  reduced  to  practice  in 
this  world. 

In  all  cases  where  an  individual  is  charged  with  any  viola- 
tion of  law,  there  are  necessarily  two  questions  involved : 

1.  Did  the  accused  commit  the  act,  or  hold  the  opinion 
alleged  ?     This  is  simply  a  question  of  fact. 

2.  Is  the  act  or  opinion  a  violation  of  the  law  ?     And  this  i^ 
a  question  of  law. 

Every  conceivable  case,  arising  under  any  system  of  law, 
must  embrace  these  two  questions.  As  to  the  first  question, 
the  fact  being  peculiarly  within  the  knowledge  of  the  party,  he 
may  concede  it,  and  thus  waive  the  necessity  of  proof .  When 
the  charge  involves  the  crime  of  heresy,  the  fact  is  gener- 


4:22  RESULTS    OF   THE   PROTESTANT   THEORY. 

ally,  if  not  always,  conceded.  The  concession  of  the  fact  only 
waives  the  necessity  of  proof  to  establish  it.  But  the  question 
of  fact  is  still  involved,  whether  the  fact  be  admitted  or  denied 
As  to  the  question  of  law,  the  admission  of  error  by  the  accused 
will  not,  of  course,  control  the  action  of  the  tribunal.  A  crim- 
inal court  would  not  inflict  the  punishment  of  death  upon  a 
criminal,  contrary  to  law,  simply  because  he  preferred  this  pun- 
ishment to  that  of  imprisonment  fbr  life. 

When  a  member  is  brought  before  a  Protestant  Church,  the 
tribunal  which  assumes  to  try  him  must,  of  necessity,  ascertain 
the  fact,  if  denied,  and  construe  the  law  for  him ;  otherwise,  it 
could  not  be  a  trial,  even  in  mere  form.  If  the  accused  be  al- 
lowed to  settle  the  fact  and  law,  or  either  of  them,  he  could 
readily  escape  by  his  own  act.  He  would  certainly  get  himself 
out  of  the  difficulty.  The  whole  end  and  purpose  of  the  trial 
would  be  defeated,  the  moment  the  party  accused  is  permitted 
either  to  settle  the  fact  or  the  law. 

The  result  is  that  the  Protestant  tribunal,  which  ascertains 
the  fact,  and  construes  the  law  for  the  individual  member,  does 
most  clearly  violate  the  right  of  private  interpretation,  so  far  as 
regards  the  punishment  inflicted.  To  mitigate  this  palpable  vio- 
lation of  the  fundamental  rule,  they  are  compelled  to  concede 
two  points,  which,  in  practical  and  logical  effect,  defeat  the  en- 
tire end  and  purpose  of  the  formal  decision : 

1.  That  the  tribunal  which  determines  the  case  is  fallible  and 
may  err ;  and,  therefore,  its  decision,  in  the  contemplation  of 
the  theory  itself,  is  no  evidence  of  the  truth,  does  not  settle  the 
question,  and  is  entitled  to  no  respect  or  obedience ;  conse- 
quently, the  party  formally  condemned  is  not  bound  to  abide 
the  decision,  unless  his  supreme  judgment  concur  in  it. 

2.  That  the  punishment  inflicted  amounts  to  nothing  ;  as  ex- 
pulsion  from  the  church,  under  the  decision  of  a  merely  fallible 
tribunal,  does  not  affect  the  Christian  standing  of  the  party  in 
anyway  ;  and  his  chances  of  salvation  must  be  conceded,  by  the 
theory  itself,  to  be  as  good  out  of,  as  in  the  Church. 

As  a  matter  of  course,  the  party  expelled  could  not  be  ex- 
pected to  yield  up  his  private  opinion,  for  the  mere  farcical  de- 
cision of  such  a  tribunal ;  because,  in  doing  so,  his  chances  of 
safety  would  not  be  increased,  and  he  would  be  violating  the 


RESULTS   OF   THE   PROTESTANT   THEORY.  423 

fundamental  rule  itself,  which  constitutes  his  own  mind  the  tri 
bunal  of  last  resort  on  earth.  Were  he  to  surrender  his  views 
to  such  a  decision,  it  would  be  the  appellate  court  giving  up  its 
judgment  to  the  inferior  tribunal. 

The  legitimate  result  is,  that,  as  in  the  days  of  the  apostles, 
the  Church  did  expel  heretics,  and  exercise  all  the  powers  of 
government  necessary  to  execute  that  portion  of  the  law  obliga- 
tory upon  individuals  in  this  world,  the  Protestant  Churches  are 
compelled  to  go  through  the  solemn  farce  of  a  trial  in  form.  In 
this  way  they  make  a  formal  compliance  with  the  law.  But  to 
save  their  fundamental  rule  at  the  same  time,  they  are  compelled 
to  allow  the  right  of  appeal  from  their  decision  to  the  supreme 
individual  judgment  of  the  accused  himself.  They  say  to  him, 
in  substance  :  "  We  must  try  you,  and  if  you  are  found  guilty, 
in  our  opinion,  we  must  expel  you.  But  we  concede,  while  do- 
ing this,  that  we  are  j  ust  as  apt  to  be  wrong  as  yourself,  and  our 
decision  amounts  to  nothing  but  expulsion,  and  this,  in  our  the- 
ory, is  just  as  apt  to  be  wrong  as  right."  The  form  of  a  trial 
and  decision  is  necessary  to  conform,  in  appearance,  with  the 
actual  practice  of  the  Apostolic  Church  ;  and  the  futility  of  the 
decision,  when  made,  is  conceded,  to  save  the  fundamental  rule. 
The  government  exercised  by  these  Protestant  churches  is  but 
the  mere  shadow,  without  the  substance,  of  supremacy — the 
form,  without  the  power  ;  and,  of  course,  is  entitled  to  no  re- 
spect or  obedience,  because  the  contradictory  theory  itself  claims 
none,  and  cannot  possess  that  which  it  does  not  claim. 

But  it  may  be  said  that  the  Protestant  theory  is  consistent 
and  true,  if  we  hold  that  the  decisions  of  the  Church  are  subor- 
dinate to  that  of  Christ,  in  the  day  of  Judgment ;  and  that,  con- 
sequently, the  right  of  appeal  from  the  decisions  of  the  inferior 
court  below,  will  lie  to  the  Supreme  Court  above.  But  can  this 
be  true  ? 

The  Church,  being  a  visible  continuing  corporation,  intend 
ed  to  exist  and  exercise  all  her  functions  of  government  in  this 
world,  the  law  given  for  the  government  of  her  members  must 
be  practically  administered  here.  All  the  acts  of  obedience,  in 
respect  of  both  faith  and  works,  must  be  performed  by  the  par- 
ties governed  while  they  are  in  this  mode  of  being.  All  that 
they  are  required  to  do,  must  be  done  here.  The  future  state  is 


424:  RESULTS    OF   THE    PROTESTANT   THEORY. 

simply  and  solely  one  of  rewards  or  punishments — of  enjoyment 
or  suffering.  All  ends  with  death,  so  far  as  obedience  is  con 
cerned. 

If,  then,  the  right  of  appeal  exists  from  the  decisions  of  the 
Church  to  the  general  Judgment,  this  right  would  be  wholly 
nugatory,  unless  the  appeal,  when  taken,  suspended  the  execu- 
tion of  the  judgment  until  the  case  could  be  heard  above.  The 
right  of  appeal,  without  the  effect  of  suspension,  would  be  equiv- 
alent to  allowing  an  appeal  after  the  prisoner  was  executed. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  this  right  of  suspensive  appeal  exists 
on  the  part  of  the  individual  condemned  by  the  Church,  then 
the  power  to  decide  is  wholly  idle,  for  the  plain  reason,  that  the 
decision  remains  suspended,  and,  therefore,  for  the  time  defeat- 
ed, until  the  day  of  Judgment ;  and  it  is  then  too  late  to  inform 
the  inferior  tribunal  of  its  duty,  or  to  benefit  the  defendant  him- 
self. Each  individual  condemned  takes  his  appeal  at  once,  and 
the  question  then  stands  adjourned  from  the  date  of  the  decision 
to  the  day  of  Judgment.  And  as  cases  arise  continually,  and 
each  one  is  appealed,  the  calendar  of  causes  must  increase  from 
age  to  age,  without  a  decision  in  a  single  case  to  correct  a  single 
error,  until  the  end  of  time.  The  result  is,  that  the  inferior  tri- 
bunals labor  and  grope  on  in  the  dark,  throughout  all  time,  still 
compelled  to  render  farcical  decisions,  that  no  one  is  bound  to 
respect  or  obey.  But  after  the  institution  itself  has  run  its  en- 
tire course  on  earth,  where  alone  the  law  could  be  practically  ad- 
ministered and  obeyed,  then  comes  a  decision  of  the  Supreme 
Tribunal,  correcting  errors,  when  such  correction  is  idle  for  all 
beneficial  purposes,  so  far  as  regards  either  the  Church  or  the 
appellant  himself.  This  would  be  about  as  wise  and  efficient  as 
if  the  Constitution  had  organized  a  Supreme  Court,  with  the 
right  of  suspensive  appeal  from  all  inferior  Federal  tribunals ; 
and  yet  only  permitted  that  Supreme  Court  to  sit  once,  and  that 
at  the  end  of  the  existence  of  the  government  itself. 

But  it  may  be  said,  that  there  certainly  will  be  a  future  day 
of  Judgment ;  and  this  being  true,  for  what  purpose  was  that 
day  set  apart,  if  not  to  hear  appeals  from  the  Church  on  earth  ? 

A  little  calm  attention  to  the  law  of  Christ,  as  He  promul- 
gated it,  and  a  due  consideration  of  the  ends  and  purposes  of 
the  system,  will  show  the  true  theory  upon  this  subject.  As 


BE8ULT8   OF   THE   PROTESTANT   THECKY.  425 

our  Lord  appeared  on  earth  a  living,  visible  lawgiver,  and  as  His 
system  requires  both  faith  and  works,  and  as  He  ascended  into 
heaven,  and  will  not  again  visibly  appear  until  the  end  of  the 
world,  He  left  His  law  with  His  agents,  whom  He  infallibly 
guides  in  their  administration  of  this  law  on  earth. 

The  result  of  this  theory  is,  that  that  portion  of  the  code 
which  was  required  to  be  obeyed  by  individuals  in  this  state,  is 
committed  to  the  Church  for  final  decision.  The  decision  of 
this  infallible  Church  is  but  the  decision  of  Christ  Himself,  act- 
ing by  and  through  His  own  Institution.  And  this  is  the  reason 
why  our  Lord  said  to  His  apostles,  whatsoever  ye  shall  bind  or 
loose  on  earth,  shall  be  bound  or  loosed  in  heaven.  This  power 
of  binding  and  loosing  was  given  for  some  great  and  beneficial 
purpose,  because  the  exercise  of  it  was  confirmed  in  heaven.  It 
was  given  by  the  Founder  of  the  Institution,  as  a  part  of  its 
permanent  constitution.  On  the  day  of  Judgment  there  will  be 
no  question  to  decide  that  has  been  decided  by  the  Church. 
The  questions  to  be  then  determined,  will  be  questions  of  fact, 
regarding  the  "  secrets  of  all  hearts  "which  have  not  been  con- 
fessed and  repented  of  in  this  world,  as  the  law  required  ;  and 
in  apportioning  the  rewards  and  punishments  due  to  individuals. 
The  rewards  and  punishments  promised  and  denounced  by  the 
system  could  not,  from  their  very  nature,  be  enjoyed  or  suffered 
in  this  mode  of  existence.  For  that  reason,  the  administration 
of  this  portion  of  the  law  was  not  committed  to  the  Church,  but 
reserved  to  the  future  Judgment.  And  as  individuals  who  hypo- 
critically conceal  their  sins  injure  mainly  but  themselves,  the  in- 
fallible knowledge  of  these  individual  facts  was  never  given  to 
the  Church,  because  not  really  essential  to  enable  her  to  exe- 
cute the  law. 

But  the  theory  of  private  interpretation  in  the  last  resort  on 
earth,  is  a  disastrous  theory,  when  carefully  and  calmly  consid- 
ered. 

It  is  extremely  unjust  to  the  Divine  Lawgiver,  because  it  de- 
preciates the  character  .of  His  own  work  ;  and,  therefore,  im- 
pugns His  justice  and  capacity.  You  may  praise  an  architect 
in  words  to  any  extent  you  please,  while  you  depreciate  his 
work,  and  he  never  will  appreciate  this  left-handed  compliment. 
It  is  also  unjust  to  our  Lord,  because  it  defeats  the  beneficent 


426  RESULTS    OF   THE    PROTESTANT   THEORY. 

purposes  of  His  system.  It  leaves  the  difficulties  inevitably  aris- 
ing in  the  practical  administration  and  application  of  this  perfect 
and  extended  system  of  law,  to  accumulate  and  remain  uncor 
rected  from  age  to  age,  throughout  the  entire  course  of  the 
Church  on  earth,  and  only  proposes  to  settle  them  after  the  in- 
stitution has  closed  its  earthly  existence,  and  after  that  portion 
of  the  code  intended  for  practical  administration  in  this  state  of 
being,  has  ceased  to  operate.  It  proposes  to  close  the  door,  after 
the  steed  is  stolen. 

But  it  is  equally  unjust,  harsh,  and  ruinous  to  the  parties 
governed.  The  theory  concedes  that  without  faith  it  is  impos- 
sible to  please  God  ;  and,  therefore,  each  person  must  believe 
the  truth,  and  the  whole  truth  required  by  Christ  to  be  believed. 
It  must,  then,  concede  the  right  of  ultimate  construction  of 
the  law,  to  reside  in  the  Divine  Lawmaker  ;  and,  therefore,  that 
the  construction  of  the  individual  will  not  save  him,  unless  it 
happens  to  be  right.  And  whether  this  individual  construction 
be  right  or  wrong,  the  individual  has  no  certain  means  of  know- 
ing. He  finds  his  individual  construction  opposed  to  the  views 
of  the  overwhelming  majority  of  all  professed  Christians,  in  all 
ages  ;  yet  he  must  adhere  to  his  private  construction  at  his  eter- 
nal peril,  or  give  up  the  theory.  As  often  as  new  and  difficult 
questions  arise,  he  must  either  pay  no  attention  to  them,  or  form 
some  judgment  of  his  own,  right  or  wrong.  If  wrong,  he  is 
lost.  If  right,  he  does  not  know  it.  All  he  can  say,  under  his 
theory,  is  that  he  thinks  he  is  right.  The  questions  accumulat- 
ing from  generation  to  generation  remain  undetermined,  except 
by  his  own  opinions.  The  previous  construction  of  the  Church 
cannot  be  his  guide,  and  can  afford  him  no  relief,  because,  under 
the  Protestant  theory,  "  the  act  of  contravention,'*  as  Professor 
Greenleaf  justly  says,  "  remains  a  sin  in  the  last  transgressor  as 
well  as  the  first."  (Ex.  Tes.  Ev.,  517.)  He  cannot  rely  upon 
0  authority — upon  any  thing  but  his  own  confessedly  fallible  con- 
struction of  the  law.  He  is,  therefore,  placed  in  a  position  of 
terrible  individual  responsibility,  without  any  certain  guide. 
He  must  know  and  obey  the  will  of  the  Great  Lawgiver  in  all 
material  respects,  or  be  lost.  But  at  the  same  time  that  he  must 
arrive  at  a  just  solution  of  all  difficulties,  he  is  left  in  the  most 
painful  state  of  destitution.  He  knows  there  are  things  hard  tc 


.RESULTS    OF   THE   PBOTESTANT   THEORY.  427 

be  understood,  that  must  still  be  understood.  And  yet  ques- 
tions that  perplex  his  judgment  must  remain  postponed  until 
the  last  day.  True,  when  that  day  arrives,  he  will  know  wheth- 
er his  construction  of  the  law  has  been  right  or  wrong.  If 
wrong,  he  is  condemned,  and  his  knowledge  comes  entirely  too 
late.  If  he  had  only  known  the  true  construction  of  the  law  on 
earth,  he  would  have  been  saved.  But  there  were  no  means  af-' 
forded  him  to  attain  this  certain  knowledge,  and  all  that  he 
could  do  was  to  be  "  darkly  wise  "  as  to  his  Master's  will. 

§  2.  The  position  of  Luther,  at  the  beginning  of  the  Reforma- 
tion. 

So  long  as  the  sentiment  of  Julius  Caesar,  that  "  he  would 
rather  be  the  first  man  in  a  village  than  the  second  man  in 
Rome  "  shall  find  an  echo  in  human  ambition,  so  long  will  "  lead- 
ers rather  than  creeds  make  parties  and  keep  them,"  as  Mr. 
Campbell  very  justly  says,  under  any  theory  of  private  inter- 
pretation in  the  last  resort.  Even  if  there  were  no  great  diffi- 
culties in  the  construction  and  application  of  Scripture,  as  of 
every  other  code,  and  conceding  all  men  unprejudiced ;  still,  as 
so  few  can  be  qualified  and  have  the  time  to  investigate  and  de- 
cide the  entire  law  for  themselves,  leaders,  from  motives  of  am- 
bition, revenge,  or  a  zeal  not  according  to  knowledge,  would 
always  make  parties  and  keep  them,  under  such  a  theory. 

If  a  law  were  given  to  only  twenty  men,  all  independent 
equals,  and  each,  therefore,  bound  to  decide  alone  for  himself, 
it  would  be  remarkable  if  even  that  limited  number  could  agree. 
If  they  disagreed,  one  could  not,  consistently  with  the  rule,  say 
to  the  other,  you  are  wrong.  If  every  one  of  the  twenty  dif- 
fered from  all  the  others,  they  might  deplore  the  differences 
with  all  the  fervor  and  zeal  possible ;  but  still  this  lamentation 
would  not  begin  to  settle  the  difficulty.  Each  must  still  abide 
in  his  own  judgment.  And  to  say  to  men,  under  such  a  rule, 
"  Be  united,"  would  be  about  as  efficient  to  produce  the  end  de- 
sired, as  to  say  to  the  naked  and  hungry,  "  Be  ye  clothed  and 
fed."  The  necessity  of  unity,  could  not  produce  unity  in  fact. 

The  necessity  of  unity  in  action,  may  induce  men  to  yield 
up  their  judgments  to  others  in  temporal  matters ;  but  when  a 
matter  of  faith  and  conscience  is  concerned,  how  can  a  man, 


428  RESULTS    OF   THE   PROTESTANT   THEORY. 

acting  upon  the  rule  of  private  interpretation  in  the  last  resort, 
give  up  his  faith  for  that  of  any  other  mere  fallible  man  ?  He  can 
only  yield  when  convinced,  and  to  yield  without  this  conviction, 
would  be  sinful  hypocrisy.  This  the  honest  and  sincere  mind 
cannot  do.  The  only  possible  plan  for  unity  under  this  rule,  is 
the  accidental  agreement  of  so  many  different  minds,  in  refer- 
ence to  so  many  different  and  difficult  points.  However  sincere, 
however  meek,  and  however  void  of  ambition  and  prejudice 
men  might  be,  they  would  have  all  to  possess  the  same  mental 
organization,  the  same  mental  training,  and  be  surrounded,  sub- 
stantially, by  the  same  circumstances,  before  they  could  ever 
arrive  at  the  same  judgment,  in  reference  to  so  many  different 
matters. 

And  when  we  go  from  theory  to  facts,  we  shall  find  the  truth 
of  this  position  most  fully  and  conclusively  shown.  How  has 
the  theory  worked  out  in  practice  ?  What  has  been  the  effect 
among  those  who  have  confessedly  acted  upon  the  rule  ?  Have 
they  kept  the  unity  of  the  faith  ?  Into  how  many  parties  are 
they  divided  ?  Who  can  tell  ?  And  which  of  these  various 
parties  is  in  the  right,  as  judged  by  the  theory  itself?  Who 
knows  ?  Why  do  they  not  agree  ?  Is  it  because  the  rule  is 
erroneous  ?  Or  is  it  because  of  prejudice  ?  Or  is  it  because  of 
too  much  light  ?  Have  they  too  much  knowledge  ?  And  is  it 
the  inevitable  result  of  knowledge,  that  men  are  more  and  more 
incapable  of  arriving  at  truth  ?  And,  therefore,  the  better  men 
are  qualified  to  judge,  the  less  apt  they  are  to  judge  correctly  ? 
and  the  more  they  are  prone  to  differ  ? 

Nothing  can  be  more  demonstrable  of  this  impracticable 
theory,  when  applied  to  law  intended  for  the  government  of  as- 
sociated men,  than  a  candid  and  fair  study  of  the  main  features 
of  Protestant  Christianity.  It  is  not  within  the  compass  of  my 
design  to  speak  of  the  varied  divisions  among  Protestants,  or 
of  the  many  fruitless,  yet  persevering,  efforts  to  heal  them. 
They  have  divided  and  subdivided  so  often,  that  the  most  con- 
densed statement  of  these  separations,  would  occupy  more  space 
than  the  limits  of  this  work  could  spare.* 


*  The  human  mind,  when  rightly  disposed,  must  ever  love  consistency,  be- 
itause  truth  is  always  consistent  in  every  particular ;  and  truth  is  lovely  and 


RESULTS   OF   THE   PROTESTANT   THEORY.  429 

But  the  reader  must  be  referred  to  the  works  of  others,  who 
nave  treated  this  subject  at  large.  After  a  careful  examination, 
the  dispassionate  observer  will  not  fail  to  see  how  far  Protestants 
have  departed  from  the  faith  of  the  early  Reformers,  who  were 
held,  especially  Luther,  as  instruments  of  God,  raised  up  by 
Him  for  that  special  purpose.  Nor  can  the  candid  and  impar- 
tial inquirer  fail  to  mark  the  incidents  of  this  progress ;  "  how," 
as  Bossuet  says,  "they  first  separated  themselves  from  the 
Catholic  Church,  and  afterwards  from  one  another;  by  how 
many  subtleties,  evasions,  and  equivocations,  they  labored  to  re- 
pair their  divisions,  and  to  reunite  the  scattered  members  of 
their  disjointed  reformation."  *  And  by  taking  the  opinions 

worthy  of  admiration.  Every  system  of  truth  must  be  harmonious,  united,  and 
practical.  If  the  fundamental  principle  of  a  theory  be  erroneous,  the  superstruc- 
ture, if  consistent  with  it,  must  of  course  be  defective.  But  if  inconsistent  with 
the  fundamental  principle,  the  superstructure  cannot  be  secure,  and  there  can  be 
no  harmony  in  the  theory.  If  the  leading  principle  be  practically  nullified,  there 
must  exist  a  continual  war  between  profession  and  practice,  and  men  must  sooner 
or  later  discover  the  discrepancy.  When  the  mind  is  placed  in  the  painful  posi- 
tion of  self-contradiction,  it  can  never  rest  in  peace. 

The  history  of  these  ever-varying  and  distressing  changes,  is  one  full  of  in- 
struction and  interest.  It  is  the  history  of  the  most  gigantic  and  persevering 
struggles  of  the  human  mind,  to  erect  a  firm  and  consistent  structure  upon  a 
false  foundation — to  make  a  theory  logical  and  well-proportioned,  which  has,  for 
its  fundamental  rule,  an  impracticable  basis.  It  has  been  one  continued  and 
never-ceasing  attempt  to  reconcile  two  irreconcilable  elements — the  right  of  pri- 
vate interpretation  in  the  last  resort,  and  the  right  of  government  in  the  Church. 
These  two  principles,  in  their  very  nature,  are  radically  and  fundamentally  op- 
posed, and  never  can  coexist.  Like  any  two  precise  opposites,  they  never  can 
be  put  together.  And  union  and  peace,  the  legitimate  results  of  rightful  govern- 
ment alone,  can  never  be  found  where  the  right  of  private  interpretation,  in  the 
last  resort,  exists  in  each  party  governed. 

*  In  considering  this  question,  I  was  referred  by  Dr.  Spring  to  the  works  of 
Bossuet,  speaking  of  which  the  Doctor  says : 

"  The  celebrated  Bossuet,  in  his  history  of  the  variations  of  the  Protestant 
churches,  (speaking  of  which,  Hallam,  in  his  History  of  Literature,  says  '  there  is 
nothing  perhaps  in  polemical  eloquence  so  splendid,')  undertakes,  with  great  re- 
search, to  show,  that  the  difference  in  religious  opinions  in  Pi  otestant  churches, 
is  a  natural  and  necessary  result  of  abjuring  the  supremacy  of  Rome."  (Disser- 
tation 58.) 

In  a  note  to  page  14,  the  learned  divine  says :  "  For  the  best  argument  I 


4:30  RESULTS    OF   THE    PROTESTANT    THEORY. 

and  views  of  Protestants  of  the  present  day,  and  comparing 
them  with  the  doctrines  of  the  first  Reformers  and  their  imme- 
diate followers,  he  will  be  enabled  to  see  how  completely,  in  the 
space  of  little  more  than  three  hundred  years,  they  have  veered 
around  to  the  opposite  extremes,  upon  the  most  important 
points. 

When  Luther  contemplated  the  Reformation,  he  found  him- 
self placed  in  certain  circumstances.  No  intellect  or  zeal,  how- 
ever great,  can  lift  their  possessor  above  the  controlling  influ- 
ence of  circumstances. 

The  law  of  Christianity  itself  was  complete,  and  the  legisla- 
tive power  of  the  kingdom  had  been  all  exercised  as  to  all  the 
permanent  features  of  the  code,  and  the  executive  and  judicial 
powers  only  remained.  It  was,  therefore,  obvious,  that  the  first 
and  most  important  matter  must  be  the  construction  of  the 
law  governing  the  Church.  This  law  was  positive,  expressed 
in  human  language,  and  must,  of  necessity,  be  construed  by 
some  one.  The  article  designating  the  tribunal  to  construe  this 
law  in  the  last  resort,  was,  for  that  reason,  the  first  and  para- 
mount rule  to  be  made.  This  would  necessarily  hold  the  first 
place.  It  would  constitute  the  principal  basis,  upon  which  the 
whole  theory  must  rest. 

But  from  the  invincible  nature  and  reason  of  things,  this 
right  to  construe  the  law  in  the  last  resort,  could  only  be  placed 
in  one  of  two  tribunals,  namely  :  a  tribunal  deciding  for  others, 
or  each  one  deciding  for  himself.  There  was  no  other  possible 
theory  but  these.  It  was,  in  its  essence,  a  question  between 
government  and  no  government  in  the  Church.  Traced  out, 
and  carried  to  its  plain,  logical  results,  it  could  possibly  lead  to 
no  other  conclusion.  But  the  Old  Church  was  in  possession  of 
the  governing  principle.  She  assumed  the  exercise  of  the  ex- 
ecutive and  judicial  powers.  If  Luther  admitted  the  rightful 

have  seen  in  favor  of  the  views  of  Romanists,  the  reader  may  be  referred  to  the 
controversial  writings  of  that  very  learned  and  eloquent  writer,  Bossuet." 

As  I  read  the  Dissertation  of  Dr.  Spring,  among  other  Protestant  works, 
when  I  was  inquiring  into  the  truth  of  the  Catholic  rule,  and  heing  referred  to 
the  works  of  Bossuet,  I  read  them  in  the  course  of  my  examination,  and  they 
certainly  merited  all  the  encomiums  hestowed  upon  them.  They  are  distin- 
guished alike  for  candor  and  fairness. 


RESULTS    OF   THE    PROTESTANT   THEORY.  431 

existence  of  these  powers  in  the  Church,  he  would  be  himself 
condemned,  and  could  only  make  such  a  reformation  as  the  gov- 
erning power  of  the  Church  would  sanction.* 

He  was,  therefore,  forced  to  assume  the  common  ground  held 
by  the  various  sects  of  heretics  that  preceded  him.  So  far,  ne- 
cessity compelled  him  to  build  upon  another  man's  foundation. 
But  he  could  not  adopt  the  entire  theory  of  any  one  of  these 
sects,  for  these  reasons  :  1.  Their  theories  had  been  tried,  and 
failed.  2.  He  would  be  building  entirely  upon  the  foundation 
of  another.  3.  He  could  not  conscientiously  sanction  their  con- 
demned errors.  Now  whether  all  these  reasons,  or  only  a  por- 
tion of  them,  and  which  portion,  induced  him  to  discard  all  and 
each  of  these  condemned  theories,  must  be  left  with  each  per- 
son to  determine  for  himself.  My  own  impression  is,  they  all 
had  their  influence. 

The  principle  of  private  interpretation  in  the  last  resort  was, 
therefore,  forced  upon  Luther.  It  was  either  that  or  no  Ref- 
orm atiop.  There  was  no  possible  middle  course.  Either  the 
right  lo  construe  the  law  in  the  last  resort  resided  in  the  Church, 
or  with  each  individual.  It  could  not  be  divided  between  them. 
Two  supreme  tribunals  to  execute  the  same  law  over  the  same 
persons,  could  not  exist  under  the  same  system  of  government. 
We  could  just  as  readily  conceive  of  two  Supreme  Deities,  cre- 
ating and  governing  the  same  universe. 

The  authority  of  the  Church  was  the  last  restraint  that  Lu- 
ther cast  aside.  It  cost  him  much  pain,  as  he  himself  relates. 
"  After,"  says  he,  "  I  had  gotten  the  better  of  all  the  arguments 
which  were  opposed  to  me,  one  remained  still,  which,  with  ex- 
treme difficulty  and  great  anguish,  I  could  scarce  conquer,  even 

*  The  Hon.  Alex.  H.  Stephens  of  Georgia,  in  a  speech  delivered  in  the  House 
of  Representatives,  February  12,  1859,  in  reference  to  the  admission  of  Oregon 
into  the  Union,  said  : 

"  When  I  was  going  to  address  the  people  at  a  particular  place,  meeting  a 
gentleman  on  the  way,  I  asked  him  if  he  was  going  to  the  court-house  ?  He 
said,  '  No ;  that  I  was  going  to  speak,  and  that  he  only  wanted  to  know  what 
side  I  was  upon  to  be  against  it.'  I  said,  *  That  is  the  reason  you  are  always  in 
the  minority ;  you  give  me  choice  of  sides  upon  all  questions,  and  of  course  I 
take  the  best.' " 

So  it  was  with  the  Old  Church.  She  had  choice  of  sides,  and  of  course  took 
the  true  ono,  leaving  Luther  the  false. 


432  RESULTS    OF   THE   PROTESTANT   THEORY. 

with  the  assistance  of  Jesus  Christ ;  namely,  that  we  ought  to 
hear  the  Church."  But  it  must  be  conceded  that  Luther  may 
have  been  mistaken  in  the  supposed  assistance  of  Jesus  Christ. 
He  may  have  mistaken  Christ's  abandonment  of  him  for  His  assist- 
ance. Whether  this  be  true  or  not,  there  was  a  very  remarkable 
circumstance  connected  with  his  rejection  of  the  authority  of  the 
Church.  After  having  prevailed  over  his  scruples,  and  in  his 
last  struggle  to  shake  off  the  authority  of  the  Church,  "  he  cries 
out,"  says  Bossuet,  "  like  one  set  free  from  some  irksome  bond- 
age, '  Let  us  break  their  bands  asunder,  and  cast  their  yoke  from 
us.'"  (Va.  B.  1,  n.  26.) 

This  quotation,  made  by  Luther,  is  from  the  third  verse  of 
the  second  chapter  of  Psalms,  where  it  stands  in  this  connec- 
tion : 

"  2.  The  kings  of  the  earth  set  themselves,  and  the  rulers 
take  counsel  together  against  the  Lord,  and  against  his  anoint- 
ed, saying, 

"  3.  Let  us  break  their  bands  asunder,  and  cast  their  yoke 
from  us. 

"  4.  He  that  sitteth  in  the  Heavens  shall  laugh :  the  Lord 
shall  have  them  in  derision." 

The  Catholic  thinks  that  Luther  made  a  quotation  precisely 
suited  to  his  position  and  the  effort  he  was  making. 

§  3.  The  ground  assumed  by  I/uther. 

When  Luther  commenced  his  reformation,  he  assumed  a 
most  grievous  responsibility.  He  who  sets  himself  up  to  reform 
the  entire  Christian  Church,  in  matters  of  fundamental  faith, 
ought  to  be  very  certain  that  he  is  in  the  right.  No  motives 
of  human  pride  or  passion  can  excuse  such  a  revolution.  The 
causes  to  justify  such  an  extraordinary  attempt  ought  to  ha\  e 
been  primary,  important,  and  certain,  and  palpable  to  the  world. 

To  assume  to  have  made  any  new  discovery  in  science,  the 
domains  of  which  are  admitted  by  all  to  be  yet  imperfectly  ex- 
plored, is  not  extravagant  or  inconsistent  with  the  recognized 
basis  upon  which  it  assumes  to  rest.  But  to  assume  to  reform 
an  institution  like  the  Church  of  Christ,  whose  integrity  is  ad- 
mitted to  have  been  guaranteed  by  the  immutable  promises  of 
the  Founder  Himself,  and  which  Church  is  conceded  to  be  gov 


RESULTS   OF   THE   PROTESTANT   THEORY.  433 

erned  by  a  perfect,  positive,  and  unchangeable  law,  fully  under- 
stood and  reduced  to  practice  at  the  beginning,  is  certainly  as- 
suming the  most  lofty  pretensions,  while  at  the  same  time  it  lays 
to  the  charge  of  preceding  ages,  the  most  grievous  and  criminal 
delinquencies.  In  short,  such  a  reformer  must  begin  by  con- 
demning all  others,  and  end  by  elevating  himself j  by  contrast 
with  them,  to  the  most  perilous  height.  He  ought,  by  all  means, 
to  be  very  certain  he  is  in  the  right.  No  mere  probabilities  could 
justify  such  a  position. 

It  may  seem  remarkable,  that  reformers  are  themselves  gen- 
erally the  most  impatient  of  contradiction.  While  assuming  to 
reform  all  others,  they  receive  propositions  to  reform  their  own 
theories  with  the  utmost  dislike.  They  never  can  see  the  wit 
of  such  a  joke.  They  are  like  those  merciless  wits,  who  rejoice 
when  they  can  inflict  pain  upon  others,  but  who,  themselves, 
bear  a  keen  cut  with  a  remarkably  ill  grace.  And  yet  nothing 
is  more  natural  than  this  conduct  in  a  reformer.  He  assumes  to 
place  himself  in  a  very  elevated  and  sublime  position, 

"  like  a  star, 

That  from  its  incommunicable  height, 
Looks  coldly  on  the  feverish  world  below." 

If,  then,  he  cannot  sustain  these  lofty  pretensions,  his  posi- 
tion becomes  truly  painful.  When  a  proposition  is  made  to  re- 
form his  own  reformed  doctrine,  the  new  reformer  says  to  him, 
substantially :  "  You  have  been  plying  around  your  all-destroy- 
ing scythe,  cutting  and  mangling  all  you  met  in  your  way  ;  and 
yet  you  are  yourself  incompetent  to  reform  what  you  attacked. 
You  have  sense  enough  to  see  there  is  error,  but  not  enough  to 
see  where,  or  what  it  is,  or  how  to  cure  it.  I  admit  that  reform 
was  needed,  but  you  did  not  know  how  to  accomplish  it.  You 
did  your  work  so  badly,  it  must  be  done  over  again.  You  who 
assumed  to  know  so  much,  yet  know  so  little,  that  you  also  need 
reformation." 

If  the  reformer  have  any  pride  or  ambition  in  his  heart,  he 
must  feel  keenly  under  such  circumstances.  And  the  proposi- 
tion to  reform  Luther's  doctrine,  who  claimed  a  special  and  ex- 
traordinary  mission,  was  certainly  a  very  strong  and  direct  impu- 
tation of  error  in  an  assumed  special  agent  of  God. 
38 


4-34  RESULTS    OF   THE    PROTESTANT    THEORY. 

The  fact  that  John  Wesley,  in  his  old  age,  and  years  after 
he  commenced  his  course,  and  before  his  leading  associates,  in  a 
public  conference,  admitted  his  Calvinistic  and  Antinomian  er- 
rors, is  one  of  the  most  conclusive  proofs  of  his  sincerity  and 
humility.  It  is  one  (if  not  the  only  one)  of  the  most  noble 
instances  of  humility  ever  displayed  by  one  claiming  to  be  a  re- 
former. 

Luther  seems  to  have  had  many  fears  of  the  principle  of  pri- 
vate interpretation  in  the  last  resort,  although  it  was  the  only 
possible  ground  upon  which  he  could  consistently  base  his  own 
conduct.  For  this  reason,  we  find  he  hedged  it  around  with 
many  restrictions,  inconsistent  with  the  principle  itself,  and  yet 
necessary  to  prevent  its  weakness  from  destroying  the  whole 
project.  Hence,  he  held  that  the  Church  was  visible,  and  that 
ministers  could  not  preach  without  vocation,  either  ordinary 
or  extraordinary.  He,  therefore,  placed  his  own  right  and  au- 
thority upon  the  ground  of  an  extraordinary  mission,  attested 
by  miracles.  He  assumed  the  position  that  all  teachers  must 
derive  their  authority  to  teach  Christianity  from  one  of  two 
sources:  1.  From  the  regularly  constituted  authorities  of  the 
Church,  who  had  the  right  to  confer  the  power  by  regular  or- 
dination ;  or  2.  From  the  special  call  of  God,  attested  by  mira- 
cles. For  he  insisted,  with  reason,  that  when  God  did  depart 
from  the  regular  law  of  succession,  as  established  by  Him  in 
the  Church,  He  would  only  do  so  for  some  special  reason  ;  and 
would,  therefore,  prove  the  authority  of  His  special  agent,  by 
the  special  attestation  of  miracles. 

This  ground  was  logical,  considered  in  itself;  for  Luther 
knew,  that  to  trace  his  right  through  the  Catholic  Church,  from 
which  he  had  been  expelled,  when  by  his  excommunication  the 
Church  had  revoked  his  right  to  exercise  the  powers  that  she 
had  bestowed,  would  be  a  solecism  in  the  science  of  government. 

But  in  escaping  one  difficulty,  he  ran  upon  another.  When- 
ever God  had,  under  the  old  dispensation,  (which  was  but  pre- 
paratory to  the  new,)  raised  up  a  prophet,  or  lawgiver,  or  teach- 
er, as  His  special  agent,  He  never  failed  to  attest  the  fact  by 
miracles,  as  Luther  assumed  ;  but  He  also  inspired  and  qualified 
the  person  so  chosen.  In  the  very  nature  of  a  special  mission, 
this  special  qualification  is  required ;  otherwise,  the  special  agent 


RESULTS  OF  THE  PROTESTANT  THEORY.         435 

could  not  know  how  to  perform  the  special  duty  enjoined  upon 
him.  The  permanent  law  of  Christianity  having  been  completed 
during  the  life  of  Christ,  could  not  be  improved.  The  only  in- 
spiration, then,  that  Luther  could  claim,  was  that  of  interpreter 
of  the  existing  law. 

This  being  true,  wherefore  did  this  necessity  arise  ?  Christ 
had  surely  promised  that  He  would  be  with  His  visible  Church 
until  the  end  of  the  world.  If  the  promises  of  Christ  had  not 
failed,  there  was  no  necessity  for  such  a  mission.  If  they  had 
failed,  why  should  Christ  have  raised  up  Luther  ?  As  he  could 
only  live  for  a  few  years,  and  as  after  his  death  other  questions 
must  still  arise,  requiring  still  further  constructions  of  the  law, 
the  same  error  would  occur  again,  and  it  would  be  again  neces- 
sary to  raise  up  other  inspired  expounders  of  the  law  from  time 
to  time.  Why  not  hold  that  the  promises  of  Christ  were  im- 
mutable and  unfailing?  Luther  conceded  the  Church  to  be  a 
visible  and  continuing  association  of  men,  and  to  be  the  pillar 
and  ground  of  the  truth ;  and  if  so,  for  what  purpose  was  his 
special  mission  required  ?  If  the  promises  of  Christ  had  failed, 
who  could  have  any  confidence  in  the  mission  of  Luther  ?  It 
was  clear,  that  if  the  promises  of  Christ  had  once  failed,  that  He 
could  not  be  trusted.  But  if  His  promises  had  not  failed,  who 
could  see  the  necessity  of  such  a  mission  ? 

But  the  necessity  of  such  a  mission  would  have  been  admit- 
ted, had  the  assumed  miracles  referred  to  by  him  been  apparent 
and  conclusive  in  their  character.  They  were,  however,  not 
like  the  miracles  by  which  God  was  usually  wont  to  attest  the 
extraordinary  missions  of  His  special  servants.  They  were  not 
cognizant  by  the  senses.  They  could  readily  be  explained  upon 
natural  grounds,  and  in  accordance  with  the  Scriptures,  in  an- 
other way.  He  cured  no  diseases — he  raised  no  one  from  the 
dead.  His  alleged  miracles  consisted  only  in  visions — in  the 
extraordinary  success  of  his  preaching,  and  in  his  own  boldness. 
All  of  which  could  be  readily  accounted  for,  upon  other  grounds 
than  that  they  were  miracles. 

*  It  seems  never  to  have  occurred  to  Luther  and  his  disciples,  that  his  success 
and  the  number  of  his  followers,  could  constitute  no  proof  of  his  being  sent  of 
God,  for  the  reason,  that  St.  Paul  had  expressly  foretold  the  same  result  should 
follow  the  heretics  and  seducers  mentioned  by  him.  "  And  their  word  will  eat 


436         RESULTS  OF  THE  PROTESTANT  THKOET. 

In  conformity  with  this  claim  to  an  extraordinary  mission, 
he  did  teach  and  decide  as  one  having  such  authority.  Being 
the  great  leader  of  the  alleged  Reformation,  that  circumstance 
alone  would  have  given  him  great  influence  over  his  followers. 
Besides  these  claims,  his  indomitable  will  and  iron  nerve — even 
his  obstinacy — were  in  character  with  his  claims  to  an  extraor- 
dinary mission.  If  God  had  raised  him  up  for  a  certain  purpose, 
of  course  He  would  have  given  him  the  necessary  authority  to 
accomplish  the  end  intended.  Hence  we  find  Luther  generally 
firm,  and  nearly  always  adhering  to  his  first  positions ;  and  even 
when  he  did  change,  never  admitting  it,  except  in  one  instance, 
and  that  in  reference  to  his  first  books,  wherein  he  admitted 
there  were  some  remnants  of  Popery,  in  regard  to  Indulgences. 
(2  Va.  App.  to  Book  xiv.,  sec.  2.) 

The  Catholic  theory  which  Luther  attacked,  possessed,  in 
itself,  all  the  elements  of  certainty  and  consistency.  The  mind 
that  once  adopted  that  theory,  as  true,  relied  with  the  same 
certainty  upon  the  infallible  attestation  and  construction  of  the 
code,  as  upon  the  perfection  of  the  law  itself.  In  other  words, 
in  the  contemplation  of  that  theory,  the  mind  which  believed 
it, had  equal  certainty  as  to  the  inspiration  of  both  the  Lawgiver 
and  the  Law-interpreter. 

As  Luther  was  forced,  from  necessity,  to  adopt  the  principle 
of  private  interpretation  in  the  last  resort,  it  followed  very  logi- 
cally, that  he  should  also  adopt  the  doctrine  of  justification  by 
faith  alone,  and  reject  free  will,  and  to  assume,  as  he  did,  "that 
God  works  the  evil  in  us  as  well  as  the  good,"  "  that  free  will 
was  a  vain  title,"  and  in  his  declamatory  style,  that  "God 
thunder-strikes  and  breaks  to  pieces  all  free  will."  (Va.  B.  i., 
sec.  8,  9,  18.  B.  ii.,  sec.  17.)  In  lieu  of  the  old  system,  it  was 
necessary  to  propose  some  other,  which,  when  once  adopted  by 
the  mind  as  true,  promised  certainty.  There  was,  therefore,  a 
more  deep  philosophy  in  his  theory  than  would  at  first  view  ap- 
pear. So  there  was  in  Calvin's,  which  was  but  a  legitimate  ex- 
tension of  Luther's  leading  principles.  As  every  member  must 
construe  for  himself,  there  could  be  no  certainty  in  the  contem- 

as  doth  a  canker."  (2  Tim.  ii.  17.)  "But  evil  men  and  seducers  shaJ  wax 
worse  and  worse,  deceiving  and  being  deceived."  (2  Tim.  iii.  13.)  u  But  they  shall 
proceed  i.o  farther,  for  their  folly  shall  he  manifest  unto  all  men."  (2  Tim.  iii.  9.) 


RESULTS    OF   THE   PROTESTANT    THEORY.  437 

plation  of  such  a  theory,  unless  other  elements  were  mingled 
with  it.  But  by  assuming  that  man's  will  was  overruled  by 
God,  each  one  who  believed  this,  could  rest  content  that  he  was 
as  sure  of  being  in  the  right,  as  any  one  else  holding  the  same 
principle,  whatever  might  be  his  want  of  capacity  to  construe 
the  Scriptures  for  himself.  The  theory  that  denies  free  will,  is 
certainly  calculated,  when  once  implicitly  believed,  to  produce 
repose  and  confidence.  So,  the  idea  that  we  are  among  the  few 
favored  and  predestinated,  and  that,  too,  by  the  sovereign  act 
of  God  alone  for  His  own  glory,  is  certainly  flattering  to  the 
mind  which  entertains  it ;  and  if  firmly  believed,  must  produce 
confidence  and  consolation.  It  being  a  partial  theory,  the  fa- 
vored ones  would  necessarily  esteem  it  the  more.  It  is  natural 
that  they  should.* 

*  The  question  regarding  the  merit  of  good  works  under  the  law  of  Christ, 
has  been,  perhaps,  perplexed  by  not  observing  the  true  character  of  the  question, 
and  not  keeping  it  distinctly  in  view. 

The  rewards  and  punishments  bestowed  and  inflicted  upon  free  agents,  must 
always  depend  upon  the  law  by  which  these  free  agents  are  governed.  As 
judged  by  one  system  of  law,  a  particular  act  may  be  a  crime,  while,  as  judged 
by  another  code,  the  same  act  may  be  innocent.  When  we  judge  an  act,  we 
must  always  keep  in  view  the  particular  law  by  which  we  would  estimate  its 
merits  or  demerits.  The  law,  in  its  finished  state,  and  just  as  it  is,  must  always 
decide  the  question.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  motives  or  reasons  which 
prompted  the  lawgiver  to  enact  the  law,  whether  in  the  view  of  abstract  reason 
they  be  thought  sufficient  or  not,  it  is  still  the  law,  if  passed  by  competent  au- 
thority, and  must  decide  the  question,  whether  a  particular  act,  or  class  of  acts, 
be  either  commanded  or  prohibited.  The  motives  and  reasons  leading  to  the 
enactment  of  the  law,  may  be  well  inquired  into,  when  questions  of  construction 
are  considered;  but  the  intention  of  the  lawmaker,  being  once  ascertained, 
must  govern. 

When  we  consider  the  disproportion  that  exists  between  the  reward  of  heaven 
and  the  little  we  can  do,  we  must  at  once  admit,  that  we  could  never  merit  so 
much,  so  long  as  we  are  judged  by  the  law  of  abstract  justice  ;  which  law  re- 
sults from  the  relation  we  bear  to  God  and  the  universe — the  natural  relation 
and  fitness  of  things.  But  when  we  are  judged  by  that  system  of  mercy  estab- 
lished by  Christ,  we  can  merit. 

The  free  grace  of  our  Lord  was  shown  in  the  adoption  of  a  system,  by 
which  acts  are  considered  as  meritorious  that  would  not  be  so  when  judged 
by  the  system  of  abstract  justice.  This  merciful  system,  which  considers  that 
as  merit  which,  in  itself,  could  not  be  such  in  the  contemplation  of  any  other  sys- 
tem, was  the  result  of  the  voluntary  action  of  Christ  The  origin  and  comple- 


438        RESULTS  OF  THE  PROTESTANT  THEORY. 

Luther  could  not  have  well  adopted  any  doctrines  better 
calculated,  in  their  nature,  to  enable  him  to  succeed,  than  those 
of  justification  by  faith  alone,  and  the  rejection  of  free  will. 
They  are  not  so  well  suited  to  the  calm  reasoner,  as  to  the  de- 
clamatory zealot.  They  suited  the  impetuous  temperament  and 
the  vehement  eloquence  of  Luther.  In  times  of  excitement, 
when  positions  are  not  examined  with  care,  these  tenets  would 
be  well  received.  They  are  themes  upon  which  an  eloquent  de- 
claimer  can  dilate  with  eminent  success.  These  doctrines  made 
the  way  of  salvation  easy,  simple,  and  certain.  A  man  had 
only  to  believe,  and  he  was  safe. 

The  denial  of  free  will  in  man  is  a  necessary  weapon  to  ena- 

tion  of  the  system,  rest  entirely  with  Him.  It  cost  Him  humiliation  and 
death.  We  had  no  right  to  ask  it.  We  did  nothing  to  advance  it.  But  volun- 
tary as  the  system  was,  and  unmerited  on  our  part,  when  it  was  once  established, 
it  became  a  matter  of  covenant,  and  a  matter  of  law.  More  correctly  speaking, 
it  was  a  voluntary,  but  irrevocable,  promise.  It  was  a  promise  actually  made, 
without  any  consideration  moving  from  us.  But  as  a  sealed  instrument  in  the 
law,  from  the  solemn  nature  of  the  act,  imports  a  consideration,  and,  therefore, 
the  question  of  consideration  cannot  be  inquired  into ;  so,  the  voluntary  promise 
of  Christ  is  irrevocable,  having  been  sealed  with  His  own  blood.  This  voluntary 
promise,  owing  to  the  character  of  Him  who  made  it,  has  all  the  stability  and 
binding  force  of  an  irrevocable  covenant. 

Making  the  promise  was,  therefore,  all  free  grace  ;  fulfilling  it,  only  carrying 
out  a  pre-existing  engagement.  The  free  grace  was  displayed  in  perfecting  the 
system.  Whence  it  follows  that  every  one  owes  our  Lord  gratitude,  whether  he 
avail  himself  of  the  rewards  of  the  system  or  not.  Christ  has  still  died  for  him 
— has  still  paid  his  debt,  and  has  promised  to  reward  him  according  to  his  faith 
and  works. 

It  is  clear,  that  man  has  no  cause  to  glory  in  what  he  does,  although  it  is 
considered  merit,  when  judged  by  a  system  founded  on  free  grace.  For  when  a 
man  glories  in  the  merits  of  his  own  acts,  he  can  only  properly  do  so,  when  they 
are  meritorious,  as  judged  by  the  law  of  abstract  justice.  In  the  eye  of  this  code, 
he  can  do  no  act  to  merit  heaven,  or  the  forgiveness  of  his  sins.  All  he  cau 
say  is,  that  Christ  has  so  loved  him  that  He  has  pledged  himself,  in  advance,  to 
call  that  merit  which  is  not  meritorious  of  itself.  So  that  the  original  source 
of  all  that  we  can  merit,  is  the  blood  of  Christ.  And  in  the  eye  of  abstract 
justice,  when  Christ  rewards  us  for  our  acts,  He  but  crowns  His  own  gifts ;  for 
the  very  merit  He  rewards  is  His  own,  though  the  act,  to  which  the  merit  is  at' 
tached  by  Him,  is  ours.  Therefore,  in  the  contemplation  of  this  abstract  justice, 
the  act  is  voluntarily  ours — the  merit  is  voluntarily  Christ's.  But  in  the  contem- 
plation of  the  system  purchased  with  His  blood,  both  the  act  and  merit  are  ours. 


RESULTS    OF    THE    PROTESTANT    THEORY.  439 

ble  a  party  to  tear  down  an  existing  institution  holding  free 
will.  It  was  this  element  in  the  theory  of  Mahomet  that  mainly 
produced  that  fanatical  zeal  and  invincible  valor  displayed  by 
his  followers,  on  so  many  trying  occasions.  (Ockley's  History 
of  the  Saracens.)  Nothing  but  time  can  wear  out  the  effects  of 
such  a  principle.  Derogatory  as  it  is  to  God's  character  as  a 
lawgiver,  it  is  yet  so  flattering  to  the  mind,  that  in  seasons  of 
intense  excitement,  it  is  the  principle  always  adopted  with  suc- 
cess. Conquerors  and  other  military  heroes  generally  inculcate 
it  as  always  tending  to  make  men  more  fearless  of  death,  and 
more  cool  in  positions  of  extreme  danger. 

But,  as  Luther  insisted  that  free  will  appertained  to  God 
alone,  it  was  extremely  difficult  to  understand  upon  what 
ground,  and  for  what  reason,  God  should  give  a  positive  law, 
expressed  in  human  language,  "  commanding  what  is  right,  and 
prohibiting  what  is  wrong,"  to  a  being  who  could  neither  obey 
nor  disobey  it.  We  can  well  understand  why  any  lawgiver 
should  make  such  a  law,  for  the  government  of  intelligent 
agents,  who  could  know,  and  free  agents,  who  could  either  obey 
or  disobey  the  law,  as  they  willed;  but  we  cannot  conceive 
of  any  reason  for  giving  a  law  for  the  government  of  the  predes- 
tinated, or  of  him  who  can  have  no  will.  Where  the  will  is 
overpowered  by  some  other  irresistible  force,  outside  and  inde- 
pendent of  the  law  itself,  then  the  law  must  be  entirely  idle,  be- 
cause it  can  accomplish  nothing.  When  the  promulgation  of 
such  a  law  cannot  change  the  final  result,  in  any  way,  it  can 
only  be  inconsistent  with  the  object  of  all  law.  And  it  was  well 
said  by  one  of  the  Yaudois  leaders,  speaking  of  the  work  of 
Luther  against  free  will :  "  But  should  all  come  to  pass  of  ne- 
cessity, as  Luther  says,  and  the  predestinated  not  have  it  in 
their  power  to  turn  reprobate,  nor  contrariwise,  to  what  end  so 
much  preaching  and  so  much  writing,  since,  every  thing  hap- 
pening by  necessity,  matters  never  will  be  better  or  worse  ?  " 
(Cited  Va.  B.  xi.,  n.  119.) 

But  these  doctrines  of  predestination  and  justification  by  faith 
alone,  led  to  such  excesses  of  theory  and  practice,  as  to  force  the 
larger  portion  of  the  Protestant  world  to  reject  them;  although 
they  thereby  gave  an  example  of  versatility  and  change,  entirely 
inconsistent  with  the  claim  of  Luther  to  an  extraordinary  mission. 


4:4:0  .RESULTS    OF   THE    PKQTESTANT    THEORY. 

The  doctrines  were  not  only  indefensible  upon  the  grounds  of 
reason,  tradition,  and  Scripture,  but  they  operated  badly  in 
practice,  when  legitimately  carried  out. 

§  4.   The  difficulties  in  using  the  same  doctrines  to  tear  down 
one  institution,  and  to  build  up  another  in  its  stead. 

Although  the  followers  of  Luther,  especially  while  they  were 
all  immediately  engaged  in  the  process  of  destruction,  more 
than  in  building  up,  believed  in  his  pretensions  to  an  extraordi- 
nary mission,  they  soon  began  to  doubt  as  to  the  fact,  at  least 
so  far  as  regarded  any  special  qualification  he  assumed  to  have. 
The  fundamental  rule  being  common  to  every  member,  Stork, 
the  founder  of  the  Anabaptists,  soon  disputed  infant  baptism, 
and  insisted  that  children  would  be  saved  out  of  the  Church 
without  baptism,  and  like  Calvin,  extended  Luther's  doctrine 
of  the  certainty  of  justification  to  the  certainty  of  salvation,  and 
denied  that  grace  could  be  lost,  after  justification.  Soon  after 
Carlostadius  and  Zuinglius  denied  the  doctrine  of  the  Real  Pres- 
ence, and  in  a  very  short  time  Calvin  followed  with  his  extensions 
of  Luther's  main  principle  of  j  ustification  by  faith  alone. 

The  celebrated  German  Protestant  writer,  Henke,  in  speak- 
ing of  these  divisions,  remarks : 

"  Discord  and  schism  among  the  Protestants  were  inevita- 
ble. We  can  fancy  to  ourselves  two  periods  in  the  formation 
of  their  religious  opinions:  the  first,  their  common  struggle 
with  Catholicity,  the  protest  and  separation  of  all  these  new  re- 
ligious parties  from  the  Catholic  Church ;  the  second,  their  own 
internal  process  of  reconstruction.  In  the  first,  all  was  pulling 
down ;  in  the  second,  building  up  :  the  first  was  revolution — the 
second,  constitution  or  organization.  But  it  also  followed  that, 
in  the  one  case,  there  was  unity  of  purpose  and  community  of 
exertion,  and,  therefore,  union ;  in  the  other,  diversity  of  pur- 
pose, and,  therefore,  discord  and  separation.  *  *  *  As  soon  as 
they  seriously  set  about  reconstructing  the  sole  true  edifice  of 
Christian  faith — as  the  architects  were  not  of  one  mind,  and 
were  self-opinioned  and  obstinate  enough  to  wish  each  for  his 
own  plans,  models,  and  designs,  in  the  erection  and  ornament- 
ing of  the  edifice,  although  often  they  did  not  understand  each 
other's  language — confusion  and  strife  at  once  became  unavoid- 


RESULTS    OF   THE   PROTESTANT   THEORY.  441 

able :  oftentimes,  before  any  considerable  part  of  the  work  was 
done,  they  separated,  each  building  a  hut  for  himself,  or  taking 
up  some  temporary  lodging,  until  he  ultimately  returned  to  the 
original  dwelling.  The  expositions  of  Scripture,  and  the  con- 
clusions from  it,  which  one  party  adopted,  were  rejected  by 
another ;  and  that,  notwithstanding  the  claims  of  human  au- 
thority, which  they  determined  not  to  allow.  But,  meanwhile, 
although  authority  was  driven  out  at  one  door,  it  was  let  in  at 
another,  although  in  a  new  and  more  friendly  shape.  Before,  it 
had  dictated  as  an  arbitrary  and  infallible  lawgiver  ;  now,  it 
spake  merely  as  an  unerring  interpreter  of  the  law.  Instead  of 
the  dogma  prescribed  without  proof  or  warrant  of  Scripture, 
proven  and  Scriptural  tenets  were  now  proposed ;  but,  unfortu- 
nately, many  now  considered  the  proofs  as  worthless,  and  of  as 
little  power  as,  before,  all  had  deemed  the  authority  of  the 
church  from  which  they  had  seceded."  * 

There  is  certainly  much  truth,  with  some  error,  contained 
in  this  extract ;  and  one  must  admire  the  candor  of  the  cour- 
teous author.  He  very  properly  describes  the  Church  under 
the  figure  of  an  edifice.  The  process  of  pulling  down  the 
Church  is  properly  called  revolution,  and  the  process  of  "  recon- 
structing the  sole  true  edifice  of  Christian  faith,"  is  very  prop- 
erly called  "  constitution  or  organization."  In  reference  to  the 
first,  he  says  there  was  "  unity  of  purpose  and  community  of 
exertion,  and,  therefore,  union  ; "  but  in  reference  to  the  second, 
there  was  "  diversity  of  purpose,  and,  therefore,  separation." 

Now,  I  am  compelled  to  say,  that  it  seems  difficult  to  under- 
stand this  "  diversity  of  purpose  "  in  the  reconstruction  of  but 
one  "  sole  edifice."  The  purpose  was,  as  he  states,  first,  to  pull 
down,  and  second,  to  reconstruct.  There  was  then  unity  of 
purpose  in  both  cases.  They  were  perfectly  agreed  as  to  the 
necessity  of  pulling  down  and  reconstructing  this  sole  edifice  ; 
and  they  set  about  to  accomplish  both  purposes,  but  each  in  its 
natural  order ;  and,  therefore,  there  was  unity  of  purpose  as  to 
both  ;  but  as  to  the  manner,  and  not  the  purpose,  of  this  recon- 
struction, there  was  a  diversity  of  views  among  the  architects. 

*  Henke,  Allgem.     Geschichte,  der  ch.  Kirche.  Th.  iii.  276-9.     Cited  Bible 
Question  Fairly  Stated. 
39 


442  RESULTS    OF   THE   PROTESTANT   THEORY. 

There  was  no  diversity  as  to  the  end  to  be  attained,  but  only  as 
to  the  manner  in  which  this  should  be  reached.  As  the  lion  and 
other  beasts  of  prey,  in  the  fable  of  the  partnership  hunt,  were 
well  agreed  as  to  two  purposes :  first,  to  take  the  game,  and 
second,  to  dispose  of  it ;  and  as,  in  the  pursuit,  each  beast  was 
left  to  run  upon  his  own  legs,  and  utter  his  own  cry,  in  his  own 
way,  there  was  no  disagreement ;  but  when  they  came  to  dis- 
pose of  the  game,  adverse  interests  and  views  arose,  and  rival 
plans  for  the  disposition  of  the  prey :  So  it  was  here.  In  pull- 
ing down,  each  one  acted  in  the  attack  as  he  pleased,  and,  con- 
sequently, there  was  no  discord,  for  no  motive  to  disunion  could 
arise ;  but  when  they  come  to  build  up  again,  one  certain  man- 
ner and  form  must,  of  necessity,  be  adopted,  for  the  one  sole 
true  edifice ;  and  they  must  all  agree  ag  to  this  plan,  or  sepa- 
rate. 

The  figure  selected  by  the  learned  author  to  represent  the 
Church,  is  the  same  used  by  our  Lord,  and  by  St.  Paul,  for  the 
same  purpose.  And  no  illustration  could  have  been  selected 
more  forcibly  showing  the  radical  defects  of  the  fundamental 
principle,  upon  which  all  Protestantism  is  ultimately  based. 
The  architects  were  all  master  builders — all  independent  equals. 
There  were  no  superiors — no  subordinates.  There  was  no  ad- 
mitted head  and  no  subordination  among  these  men ;  and  how, 
therefore,  could  there  be  unity  of  views  ?  Under  the  funda- 
mental principle  that  each  was  to  decide  for  himself,  how  could 
each  one  be  otherwise  than  "  self-o pinioned  and  obstinate,"  in 
regard  to  his  own  plans  and  models  ?  Each  architect  was  re- 
quired, by  the  rule,  to  decide  conscientiously  for  himself,  and  to 
rely  upon  his  own  convictions,  as  matter  of  conscience  /  conse- 
quently, an  honest  man  could  not  give  up  his  views,  when  he 
was  not  convinced,  without  admitting  an  authority  in  others 
that  could  not  exist  under  the  rule.  If  he  pretended  to  be  con- 
vinced, when  he  was  not,  then  he  was  a  hypocrite.  In  no  view 
of  the  case  could  these  architects  yield  to  each  other  their  own 
conscientious  convictions.  It  would  have  been  a  palpable  vio- 
lation of  the  rule  itself.  The  only  ground  upon  which  they 
could  yield  up  their  different  plans,  was  that  of  being  convinced 
by  argument ;  and  among  so  many  independent  equals,  this 
could  never  happen.  And  well  may  the  author  say,  that  "  con- 


RESULTS    OF   THE    PROTESTANT   THEORY.  443 

fusion  and  strife  became  unavoidable,  *  *  *  discord  and  schism 
among  the  Protestants  were  inevitable." 

The  learned  author  says  authority  was  driven  out  at  one 
door,  in  one  shape,  and  let  in  at  another  door,  in  a  different 
shape.  In  one  shape  it  spoke,  as  he  states,  as  an  infallible  law- 
giver, in  the  other  as  an  unerring  interpreter.  In  the  first  case, 
he  alludes  to  the  Catholic  Church ;  in  the  second,  to  the  Prot- 
estant Churches.  Now  I  cannot  understand  upon  what  ground 
the  author  assumes  that  the  Catholic  Church  spoke  as  an  infalli- 
ble lawgiver.  She  does  speak  as  an  infallible  interpreter.  She 
assumes  to  make  no  law,  but  simply  to  explain  and  execute  that 
which  is  already  made.  Her  functions  are  simply  judicial  as  to 
matters  of  faith,  not  legislative.  The  forms  of  her  decrees,  it  is 
true,  are  as  positive  expositions.  This  is  in  unison  with  her  char- 
acter as  an  infallible  tribunal.  In  all  courts  of  justice,  the  judg- 
ment, which  is  the  final  and  binding  act  of  the  court,  is  always  in 
form  positive.  So  was  the  decree  of  the  Council  of  Jerusalem. 
The  opinion  giving  the  reasons  for  the  judgment,  is  in  a  different 
form,  but  the  determination  itself  is  always  positive,  and  must, 
in  the  nature  of  a  judgment,  be  so. 

And  the  fact  stated  by  the  author,  (and  so  fully  proven  by 
the  events  succeeding  the  advent  of  the  alleged  Reformation,) 
that  authority  was  driven  out  at  one  door,  and  was  let  in  at  an- 
other, is  but  another  proof  of  the  incessant  exertions  made  by 
Protestants,  to  reconcile  two  precisely  opposite  principles.  It 
is  true,  this  authority  assumed  to  come  in  at  the  other  door,  in  a 
new  and  more  friendly  shape,  but  it  was  still  the  thing  itself. 
It  wore  another  dress,  as  was  supposed,  or  the  same  dress,  turned 
the  other  side  out.  It  only  assumed  to  be  an  unerring  inter- 
preter. But  this  claim,  to  be  the  unerring  interpreter  of  Scrip- 
ture, was  wholly  incompatible  with  the  recognized  right  of  pri- 
vate interpretation.  Private  interpretation  in  the  last  resort 
could  not  exist  under  the  authority  of  an  unerring  interpreter. 
it  was,  of  course,  the  duty  of  all  to  hear  this  "  unerring  inter- 
preter," and  to  follow  this  unerring  interpretation :  otherwise,  for 
what  purpose  was  the  power  assumed  ?  If  the  unerring  inter- 
pretation of  this  interpreter  were  to  be  subject  to  the  fallible 
revision  of  each  individual  member,  then  it  would  make  the  cer- 
tain yield  to  the  doubtful.  This  would  be  reversing  all  the  rules 


444  RESULTS    OF   THE    PROTESTANT   THEORY. 

of  logic  and  right  reason.  On  the  other  hand,  to  admit  this  a* 
thority,  was  admitting  the  infallibility  of  the  visible  Church. 
This  once  conceded,  the  only  inquiry  would  be,  in  which  Church 
can  it  be  found  ?  And  if  conceded,  it  must  be  in  virtue  of  the 
promises  of  Christ ;  and  must,  therefore,  have  always  existed  in 
the  Church.  This  would  be  at  once  giving  up  the  fundamental 
principle  upon  which  the  whole  alleged  Reformation  was  itself 
based.  Hence  this  assumed  authority  of  unerring  interpreta- 
tion could  not  be  sustained,  and,  as  the  author  says,  "  many  now 
considered  the  proofs  as  worthless  and  of  as  little  power  as,  be- 
fore, all  had  deemed  the  authority  of  the  Church  from  which 
they  had  seceded." 

The  leading  principle  of  Wesley's  system  has  in  it  a  deep 
philosophy.  It  is  better  expressed  in  the  words  of  Mr.  Topham 
in  his  letter  to  Dr.  Milner. 

"  Is  it  possible,"  asks  he,  "  to  go  against  conviction  and  facts  ? 
namely,  the  experience  that  very  many  serious  Christians  feel, 
in  this  day  of  God's  power,  that  they  are  made  partakers  of 
Christ  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  who  hear  him  saying  to  the 
melting  heart,  with  his  still,  small,  yet  penetrating  and  renovat- 
ing voice :  Thy  sins  are  forgiven  thee  :  Be,  thou  clean  ;  Thy 
faith  hath  made  thee  whole  ¥  If  an  exterior  proof  were  want- 
ing to  show  the  certainty  of  this  interior  conviction,  I  might  re- 
fer to  the  conversion  and  holy  life  of  those  who  have  experienced 
it."  (Cited  End  of  C.,  L.  vii.) 

Now,  whether  the  conviction  that  this  voice  has  been  heard, 
arises  from  a  certain  excited  state  of  the  imagination,  and  a  cer- 
tain warmth  of  sentiment,  or  from  reality,  the  effect  upon  the  mind 
and  conduct  of  him  who  entertains  it,  is  still  the  same.  He  must, 
so  long  as  he  entertains  this  conviction  without  doubt,  be  certain, 
in  his  own  opinion,  of  the  correctness-  of  his  faith,  and  of  his  ac- 
ceptance with  God.  His  construction  of  the  law  at  the  time  he 
had  this  conviction,  must,  under  this  theory,  have  been  right,  as 
his  faith  could  not  make  him  whole,  unless  it  were,  in  his  view, 
the  true  faith.  And  the  intemperate  zeal  and  boisterous  joy 
of  the  Methodist  convert  are  but  the  legitimate  effects  of  this 
conviction. 

So,  too,  the  calm,  confident,  and  abiding  faith  of  the  Catho- 
lic, is  the  legitimate  result  of  the  leading  principle  of  his  system, 


RESULTS    OF   THE    PROTESTANT    THEORY.  445 

the  infallibility  of  the  Church.  So  long  aa  the  mind  entertains 
firmly  this  conviction,  there  must  be  continued  confidence  and 
peace. 

And  it  cannot  escape  the  attention  of  the  patient  inquirer, 
how  many  efforts  have  been  made,  by  the  projectors  of  different 
theories,  to  substitute  something  for  the  Catholic  ^certainty.  It 
has  ever  been  one  continued  struggle  to  find  some  principle  that 
would  afford  to  the  mind  the  same  consolatory  grounds  of  cer- 
tainty, while  at  the  same  time  the  fundamental  principle  of  pri- 
vate construction  in  the  last  resort,  could  be  sustained.  Some 
place  it,  as  we  have  seen  done  by  Luther,  or  as  by  Calvin,  or  by 
Wesley,  and  others,  in  holding  so  few  doctrines  essential,  that  al- 
most every  one  may  be  sure,  under  such  a  theory,  that  he  be- 
iieves  all  that  is  required. 

But  how  hard  it  is  to  keep  counterfeit  coin  always  in  circu- 
lation. The  different  parties  are  each  equally  certain  their  dif- 
ferent and  contradictory  substitutes  are  true.  This  cannot  be. 
And,  therefore,  all  are  left  in  doubt,  sooner  or  later.  Those  who 
hold  to  private  inspiration  have  given  such  contradictory,  yet 
positive  testimony  as  to  this  private  spirit,  that  no  one  can  tell 
who  is  right.  There  is  no  test — no  tribunal  to  determine. 

But  this  restless  and  continued  struggle  to  attain,  not  only 
infallible  certainty  in  the  making  of  the  law  itself  but  also  in  its 
construction  and  application  to  particular  cases,  as  they  arise 
from  time  to  time,  is  a  proof  of  its  invincible  necessity,  in  the 
very  nature  of  the  human  soul,  and  of  every  supernatural  system 
intended  for  men.  There  must  be  infallible  certainty  in  the 
construction  of  the  law,  as  well  as  in  its  creation,  or  there  can 
be  no  fixed  faith,  and  no  consistency  in  the  system.  That  there 
should  be  an  infallible  tribunal  to  construe  a  perfect  law,  re- 
quiring perfect  faith  of  an  imperfect  creature,  is  a  conclusion  so 
logical,  simple,  and  consolatory,  and  so  much  needed  by  our 
wants  and  frailties,  that  every  man's  heart  and  common  sense 
tell  him  it  must  be  true  ;  and  when  it  is  rejected,  there  must  be 
at  least  some  plausible  substitute  for  it. 

And  well  may  the  Protestant  Professor  Kohler  say  : 

"  In  truth,  the  Catholic  supernaturalism  is  the  only  consistent 
scheme."  (Send-schrieben  an  Prof.  Hohn,  s.  54.) 

And  also  the  German  Protestant  writer  Reinhold : 


446  RESULTS    OF   THE    PROTESTANT   THEORY. 

"  If  a  religion  contain  mysteries — if  its  path  towards  faith  lie 
over  prodigies,  the  system  of  infallibility  is  the  only  possible 
one.  It  is  the  only  system  recorded  in  history,  which,  in  the 
natural  dependence  and  harmony  of  its  parts,  can  be  said  to  de- 
serve the  name."  (Rienhold,  ttber  die  Kantische  Philosophic, 
s.  197.) 

"  The  Catholic  faith,  if  we  concede  its  first  axiom,  which 
neither  the  Lutherans,  nor  the  Reformed,  nor  even  the  followers 
of  Socinus  denied,  is  as  consistent  and  as  consecutive  as  the  books 
of  Euclid."  (Gfrorer,  Kristische  Geschichte  des  Urchristen- 
thums,  Bd.  i.  Prf.  p.  15-17.) 

"  We,  Protestants  as  we  are,  when  we  take  in  at  one  view 
this  wondrous  edifice,  from  its  base  to  its  summit,  must  acknowl- 
edge that  we  have  never  beheld  a  system  which,  the  foundation 
once  laid,  is  raised  upon  such  certain  and  sure  principles ;  whose 
structure  displays,  in  its  minutest  details,  so  much  art,  penetra- 
tion, and  consistency ;  and  whose  plan  is  so  proof  against  the  se- 
verest criticism  of  the  most  profound  science."  (Marheinecke, 
Symbolik,  1810,  p.  705-6.) 

The  Calvinists  were  called  "  The  Reformed,"  on  the  conti- 
nent. The  art,  penetration,  and  consistency,  mentioned  by  the 
learned  author,  would  necessarily  be  found  in  the  work  of  Christ. 

§  5.  Protestant  theories  of  the  Church. 

But  in  no  respect  have  the  changes  among  Protestants  been 
more  marked  and  palpable,  than  those  in  reference  to  the  con- 
stitution and  powers  of  the  Church.  The  question,  in  its  nature, 
was  of  the  greatest  importance ;  and  some  clear  and  definite 
idea  of  her  form,  functions,  mission,  and  duration,  was  indispens- 
able to  unity  of  design  and  success  in  any  system,  recognizing 
the  existence  of  any  Church  at  all.  It  was  palpable  to  common 
sense,  that  in  organizing  the  Church,  our  Lord  must  have  de- 
p  signed  the  accomplishment  of  some  great  practical  end  ;  and 
that  He  would  so  frame  His  system  that  this  end  should  not  be 
defeated.  If  He  organized  a  visible  Church,  composed  of  living, 
associated  men,  He  would  necessarily  give  a  law  for  its  govern- 
ment, and  bestow  upon  it  certain  powers  of  government,  to  pre- 
serve unity  in  the  association.  As  'great  practical  results  were 
designed  to  flow  from  the  existence  of  the  Church,  it  could  not 


RESULTS    OF   THE   PROTESTANT   THEORY. 

but  be  of  the  utmost  importance  to  understand  her  powers  and 
duties,  and  the  relation  the  faithful  bear  to  her. 

It  was  also  manifest,  that  as  the  law  was  promulgated  in  hu- 
man language,  and  committed  to  the  Church,  she  must  be  visi- 
ble and  continuing.  Her  visible  existence  must  be  commensur- 
ate with  that  of  the  visible  law  intended  for  her  government, 
and  committed  to  her  keeping.  She  must  be  capable  of  know- 
ing and  construing  the  law,  made  known  by  signs  addressed  to 
the  senses,  and  must,  therefore,  exist  as  a  visible  corporation.  If 
great  practical  results  were  to  follow  from  the  organization  of  a 
Church  at  all,  that  Church  must,  in  the  nature  of  things,  be  vis- 
ible and  continuing.  Whatever  practical  powers  or  functions 
were  bestowed  upon  such  an  institution,  could  only  be  given  to 
the  visible  Church.  Such  a  Church  could  only  speak — she  could 
only  be  heard  and  obeyed.  Men  could  only  certainly  join  them- 
selves to  a  visible  Church.  They  could  not  know,  except  by  special 
inspiration,  when  they  were  joined  to  an  invisible  Church,  if  they 
could  join  such  an  impalpable  thing  at  all.  It  was  only  the  visible 
true  Church  that  could  answer  the  prayer  of  our  Lord,  that  His 
followers  should  be  united,  that  the  world  might  believe.  An 
invisible  Church  could  never  give  evidence  to  the  world  of  any 
thing. 

And  the  reason  of  this  view  is  fully  confirmed  by  Scripture. 
All  the  powers  bestowed  upon  the  apostles  were  visibly  exer- 
cised by  them  in  the  visible  Church.  The  Council  of  Jerusalem 
made  the  decision  of  the  visible  Church.  Every  act  of  teaching 
— every  act  of  government — were  always  found  in  the  visible 
Church.  "  The  Church  "  is  often  spoken  of  in  the  Scriptures. 
In  all  places  where  the  phrase  "  The  Church  "  is  used  without 
being  confined  to  the  Church  at  a  particular  place,  as  the  Church 
at  Ephesus,  at  Corinth,  &c.,  (which  were  only  parts  of  the 
Church,  located  at  particular  places,  and  subject,  as  branches  of 
the  Church,  to  its  government,  in  the  same  way  that  the  Church 
at  Antioch,  and  all  other  branches,  were  subject  to  the  decision 
of  the  Council  of  Jerusalem,)  the  attributes  assigned  to  the 
Church  show  plainly  that  it  could  be  heard,  seen,  and  obeyed. 
The  general  expression,  the  Church,  must  have  had  a  different 
meaning  from  the  expression,  for  example,  of  the  Church  at 
Corinth;  and  this  being  so,  it  could  only  mean  the  entire 


448  RESULTS    OF    THE    PROTESTANT    THEORY. 

Church,  as  composed  of  all  the  branches.  WTien  converts  were 
baptized,  they  were  baptized  by  officers  of  the  visible  Church, 
and  added  unto  her.  The  expression  "  the  Church  "  can  only 
mean  but  one.  The  definite  article  only  points  to  but  one  Church. 
To  that  one  Church  are  attributed  all  the  powers  and  privileges 
bestowed  upon  her.  When,  therefore,  St.  Paul  says  :  "  And  he 
hath  set  some  in  the  church,"  he  not  only  alludes  to  the  one 
Church,  including  all  branches,  but  he  evidently  alluded  to  the 
visible  Church,  and  to  that  only.  These  apostles,  prophets, 
teachers,  and  evangelists,  set  in  the  Church,  for  certain  purposes, 
could  only  perform  their  functions  in  the  visible  Church. 

Hence  Luther,  Calvin,  and  Zuinglius,  and  their  respective 
followers,  for  the  first  hundred  years  succeeding  the  date  of  the 
Reformation,  held  the  Church  to  be  visible. 

The  Diet  of  Augsburg  was  called  by  Charles  V.,  Emperor 
of  Germany,  in  the  month  of  June,  1530.  Each  party  ap- 
peared. The  Lutherans  presented  their  Confession  of  Faith, 
drawn  up  by  Melanchthon,  in  concert  with  Luther.  The  four 
towns  of  the  empire,  Strasburg,  Meiningen,  Seidau,  and  Con- 
stance, who  opposed  the  literal  sense,  gave  in  their  Confession, 
drawn  up  by  Bucer.  Zuinglius,  though  not  of  the  body  of  the 
empire,  also  sent  to  the  emperor  his  Confession  of  Faith. 
Melanchthon  drew  up  an  Apology  for  the  Augsburg  Confession, 
which  was  also  received  by  the  whole  party,  and  presented  to 
the  emperor.  The  Confession  and  Apology  were  both  equally 
important  and  authentic.  (Va.  B.  iii.,  s.  1-6.) 

In  the  Augsburg  Confession,  the  Church  is  spoken  of  in  this 
way :  "  We  teach  that  there  is  a  holy  Church  which  must  eter- 
nally subsist."  "The  Church  is  the  assembly  of  saints,  wherein 
the  Gospel  is  rightly  taught,  and  the  sacraments  rightly  admin- 
istered." And  in  the  Apology  :  "  We  have  never  dreamed  that 
the  Church  was  a  Platonic  city  not  to  be  found  on  earth  :  we 
say  that  the  Church  exists ;  that  in  it  there  are  true  believers 
and  men  truly  just,  spread  over  all  the  universe.  We  add  to 
this  its  marks,  the  pure  Gospel,  and  the  Sacraments,  and  it  is 
such  a  Church  that  is  properly  the  pillar  of  the  truth."  Again  r 
"  The  Catholic  Church  is  not  an  exterior  of  certain  nations,  but 
is  men  dispersed  over  the  universe,  who  have  the  same  senti- 


RESULTS    OF   THE   PKOTE8TANT   THEORY.  449 

ments  with  regard  to  the  Gospel,  who  have  the  same  Christ, 
the  same  Holy  Ghost,  and  the  same  sacraments." 

Here  the  Church  was  admitted  to  be  visible  and  perpetual, 
and  the  pillar  of  the  truth,  having  the  Gospel  rightly  taught, 
nnd  the  same  sacraments  rightly  administered,  all  the  members 
having  the  "  same  sentiments  with  regard  to  the  Gospel." 

In  the  articles  of  Smalkald,  the  same  view  is  taken.  So  also 
in  the  Saxonic  Confession,  that  of  Wirtemberg,  that  of  Stras- 
burg  in  1530,  that  of  Basil  in  1536,  and  of  the  same  in  1532,  the 
same  character  of  the  true  Church  is  substantially  admitted. 

The  great  and  solemn  Helvetic  Confession  of  1566,  defines 
the  Church  as  that  "  which  has  been  always,  which  is,  and  which 
shall  ever  be,  the  assembly  of  the  faithful,  and  of  the  saints  who 
know  God,  and  serve  him  by  the  Word  and  the  Holy  Ghost ; " 
"  that  lawful  and  true  preaching  is  her  chief  mark,  to  which 
must  be  added  the  sacraments,  as  God  has  instituted  them." 

This  definition  contemplates  the  Church  as  visible,  perpetual, 
and  composed  of  pastors  and  people,  with  true  preaching  and  the 
right  administration  of  the  sacraments. 

But  it  is  remarkable  that  in  this  Confession  we  have  the  first 
idea  of  an  invisible  Church  to  be  found  in  any  authentic  creeds 
of  the  Reformation.  They  subjoin  "that  God  has  had  his 
friends  out  of  the  people  of  Israel ;  that,  during  the  captivity  of 
Babylon,  the  people  were  deprived  sixty  years  of  the  sacrifice ; 
that,  through  a  just  judgment  of  God,  the  truth  of  his  Word  and 
worship,  and  the  Catholic  Faith,  are  sometimes  so  obscured, 
that  it  seems  almost  as  if  they  were  extinct,  and  no  Church  at 
all  subsisting,  as  happened  in  the  time  of  Eli,  and  at  other 
times  ;  so  that  the  Church  may  be  called  invisible  ;  not  that  the 
men  she  is  composed  of  are  so,  but  because  she  is  often  hidden 
to  our  eyes,  and,  being  known  to  God  alone,  escapes  from  the 
sight  of  men." 

The  cause  of  this  invention  is  stated  by  the  celebrated 
French  Calvinist  minister,  M.  Jurieu,  as  follows :  "  That  which 
moved  some  reformed  doctors,  in  their  Confessions  of  Faith,  to 
cast  themselves  into  the  perplexity  they  were  entangled  in  upon 
their  denying  the  perpetual  visibility  of  the  Church,  was  because 
they  believed,  by  owning  the  Church  always  visible,  they 
should  find  it  difficult  to  answer  the  question  which  the  Church 


1 50  RESULTS   OF   THE   PROTESTANT   THEORY. 

of  Rome  so  often  asks  us  :  Where  was  our  Church  a  hundred 
years  ago  ?  If  the  Church  be  always  visible,  your  Calvinist  and 
Lutheran  Church  is  not  the  true  Church,  for  that  was  not  visi- 
ble." The  minister  ought  to  have  said,  whole  churches  of  the 
Reformation,  instead  of  "  some  reformed  doctors." 

The  Church  of  England  speaks  ambiguously.  "  The  visible 
Church,"  says  she,  "  is  a  congregation  of  faithful  men,  in  which 
the  pure  Word  of  God  is  preached,  and  the  sacraments  are  duly 
ministered,  according  to  Christ's  ordinance."  Nothing  is  said 
as  to  whether  she  is  always  visible,  or  whether  she  is  per- 
petual. 

In  the  Confession  of  Scotland,  the  Catholic  Church  is  de- 
fined the  Society  of  all  the  Elect :  "  She  is,"  they  say,  "  invisi- 
ble, and  known  to  God  only,  who  alone  knows  his  elect ;  "  and 
add,  "  that  the  true  Church  hath  for  its  mark,  preaching  and  the 
sacraments;"  "which  is  understood,"  say  they,  "not  of  the 
universal  Church  just  spoken  of,  but  of  the  particular  Church  of 
Ephesus,  of  Corinth,  and  so  forth,  wherein  the  ministry  had 
been  planted  by  St.  Paul." 

In  the  Catechism  of  the  French  Calvinists,  composed  by 
Calvin,  they  teach  that  the  name  "  Holy  Catholic  Church,"  in 
the  Apostle's  Creed,  was  given  to  her  "  to  signify  there  is  but 
one  head  of  the  faithful,  so  all  are  to  be  united  in  one  body  ;  so 
that  there  are  not  many  churches,  but  one  only,  which  is  dif- 
fused all  the  world  over."  "  There  is  indeed  a  visible  Church 
of  God,  conformable  to  the  signs  he  hath  given  us  to  know  her 
by ;  but  in  this  place,  (the  Creed,)  properly  speaking,  is  meant 
the  society  of  those  whom  God  hath  elected  for  salvation,  which 
cannot  be  discovered  fully  to  the  eye ; "  "  that  no  man  obtains 
pardon  of  his  sins,  unless  he  be  first  incorporated  with  God's 
people,  and  persevere  in  unity  and  communion  with  the  body 
of  Christ,  and  so  be  a  member  of  the  Church ; "  that  "  out  of 
the  Church  there  is  nothing  but  death  and  damnation ;  and  that 
all  those  who  separate  themselves  from  the  company  of  the 
faithful,  to  make  a  sect  apart,  ought  not,  whilst  divided,  to  hope 
salvation." 

It  will  be  seen  that  in  this  Catechism  the  unity  and  univer- 
sality of  the  Church  are  admitted,  and  that  she  has  a  twofold 
union,  interim  and  exterior,  and  both  of  them  are  necessary  to 


RESULTS    OF    THE    PROTESTANT   THEORY.  451 

i 

salvation.  Making  "  a  sect  apart,"  is  undoubtedly  breaking  the 
exterior  union  of  the  Church  ;  so  that  this  Church  is  visible  in 
her  exterior,  and  known  by  the  marks  they  speak  of,  and  out  of 
which  there  is  no  salvation  ;  for  which  reasons  they  cannot  say 
we  cannot  see  or  hear  her,  but  only  that  we  could  not  see  her 


In  the  French  Calvinist's  Confession  of  Faith,  presented  to 
Charles  IX.  in  1561,  at  Poissy,  by  the  whole  party,  the  Church 
is  only  spoken  of  as  visible,  and  no  intimation  is  given  of  an  in- 
visible Church.  They  there  teach  as  a  fundamental  point,  that 
"  the  Church  cannot  subsist,  unless  there  be  pastors  in  her  that 
have  the  charge  of  teaching  ;  "  "  that  no  man  ought  to  with- 
draw apart,  nor  rest  on  self-sufficiency,  but  should  join  himself 
to  some  Church,  and  this  in  whatsoever  place  God  shall  have 
established  a  true  form  of  a  Church." 

They  speak  of  the  alleged  errors  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  and 
conclude  :  "  We  hold  that  all  those  who  join  in  such  deeds,  and 
communicate  in  them,  do  separate  and  cut  themselves  off  from 
the  body  of  Jesus  Christ." 

Nothing  could  decide  more  clearly,  that  there  is  no  salva- 
tion in  the  Catholic  Church.  And  this  was  conformable  to  Cal- 
vin's sentiments,  "  that  the  essential  doctrine  of  Christianity  was 
entirely  forgotten  by  us." 

In  reference  to  the  vocation  of  ministers,  they  say  :  "  We  be- 
lieve, then,  that  no  man  may  intrude  himself,  of  his  own  proper 
authority,  into  the  government  of  the  Church,  but  that  this 
ought  to  be  done  by  election;"  but  they  add  an  exception, 
"  which  exception,"  they  say,  "  we  add  expressly,  because  it 
hath  been  necessary  sometimes,  nay,  in  our  days,  when  the 
state  of  the  Church  was  interrupted,  that  God  should  raise  men 
in  an  extraordinary  manner,  to  set  up  the  Church  anew,  which 
was  fallen  into  ruin  and  desolation."  "  They  could  not  denote," 
says  Bossuet,  "in  more  clear  and  more  general  terms,  the  inter- 
ruption of  the  ordinary  ministry  established  by  God,  nor  carry 
it  farther  than  to  be  obliged  to  have  recourse  to  an  extraordi- 
nary mission  which  God  himself  despatches,  and  accordingly  fur- 
nishes with  the  particular  proofs  of  his  immediate  will." 

The  entire  omission  of  all  allusion  to  an  invisible  Church  in 
this  authentic  Confession  of  Faith,  created  great  difficulty 


452  RESULTS    OF   THE    PROTESTANT   THEORY. 

among  the  French  Calvinists,  and  accordingly  the  Synod  of 
Gap  was  held  in  1603,  to  consider  the  propriety  of  changing 
the  twenty-fifth  article  ;  "  so  much*the  more,"  say  they,  u  as  our 
belief,  regarding  the  Church,  whereof  mention  is  made  in  the 
creed,  being  to  be  expressed,  there  is  nothing  in  the  said  Con- 
fession that  can  be  understood  of  any  other  than  the  Church 
militant  and  visible ; "  and  a  general  command  was  given  by 
this  Synod,  "that  all  come  prepared  on  questions  concerning 
the  Church."  The  National  Synod  of  Rochelle,  held  in  1607, 
after  all  the  provinces  had  thoroughly  examined  the  question, 
decided  "  not  to  add  to  or  diminish  any  thing  from  the  twenty- 
fifth  and  twenty-ninth  articles " — the  very  same  in  which  the 
visibility  of  the  Church  was  expressed  most  fully — "nor  to 
meddle  anew  with  the  subject  of  the  Church." 

In  reference  to  the  vocation  of  the  ministers,  the  Synod  of 
Gap,  as  in  the  Confession,  referred  it  only  to  the  "  extraordi- 
nary vocation  whereby  God  interiorly  stirred  them  up  to  this 
ministry,  and  not  to  the  small  remains  amongst  them  of  that 
corrupted  ordinary  vocation;"  but  the  Synod  of  Rochelle,  four 
years  afterwards,  not  satisfied  with  the  Confession  and  the  de- 
cision of  the  Synod  of  Gap,  modified  it  by  saying,  they  must 
principally  have  recourse  to  this  extraordinary  vocation. 

This  change,  made  by  the  Synod  of  Rochelle,  was  carried 
farther  by  the  two  celebrated  French  Calvinist  ministers,  M. 
Claude  and  M.  Jurieu,  who  abandoned  the  extraordinary  mis- 
sion entirely,  and  put  forth  some  new  views  in  regard  to  the 
true  Church.  M.  Claude  admits  the  visibility  of  the  Church,  ag 
in  the  Confession,  and  the  promises  of  Christ  to  her ;  and  in  ex- 
pounding the  commission  "  Go  teach,"  he  approves  this  com- 
ment thereon,  "  with  you  teaching,  with  you  baptizing,"  and 
concludes:  "I  acknowledge  that  Jesus  Christ  promises  the 
Church  to  be  with  her,  and  to  teach  with  her,  without  interrup 
tion,  to  the  end  of  the  world." 

As  M.  Claude  had  abandoned  the  ground  of  an  extraordinary 
vocation  claimed  by  Luther  and  Calvin,  and  their  followers 
generally,  and  relied  upon  ordinary  vocation,  he  was  compelled 
to  own  that  "  this  body  in  which  the  true  faithful  are  nourished, 
and  this  ministry  whereby  they  received  sufficient  food  without 


RESULTS    OF   THE   PROTESTANT   THEORY.  453 

subtraction  of  any  part,  was  the  body  of  the  Church  of  Rome, 
ind  the  ministry  of  her  prelates." 

This  was  expressly  contrary  to  the  Confession,  to  the  Synods 
of  Gap  and  Rochelle,  and  to  Calvin,  when  he  says,  speaking  of 
the  Catholic  Church,  "  that  the  doctrine  essential  to  Christianity 
was  there  buried,  and  she  was  nothing  but  a  school  of  idolatry 
and  impiety." 

The  minister  Jurieu  is  still  more  explicit.  He  holds  "  that 
all  Christian  societies  which  agree  in  some  tenets,  inasmuch  as 
they  agree,  are  united  to  the  body  of  the  Christian  Church, 
though  they  be  in  schism  one  against  another,  even  to  daggers 
drawing."  And  he  compounds  "  the  body  of  the  Church  of  all 
that  great  heap  of  sects  which  make  profession  of  Christianity 
in  all  provinces  of  the  world  put  together,"  so  that  they  believe 
"  the  fundamental  articles."  After  mentioning  the  Greeks,  the 
Armenians,  the  Copts,  the  Abyssinians,  the  Russians,  the  Pa- 
pists, and  Protestants,  he  says,  "  all  those  societies  have  com- 
posed the  church,  and  therein  does  God  preserve  his  fundamen- 
tal truths." 

In  speaking  of  the  two  marks  of  the  true  Church,  which  are 
found  in  all  the  Protestant  Confessions  of  Faith ;  to  wit :  "  The 
pure  preaching  of  God's  Word,  and  the  administration  of  the 
sacraments  conformably  to  the  institution  of  Jesus  Christ,"  he 
says :  "  We  lay  them  down :  we,  that  is  to  say,  we  Protestants ; 
but,  for  my  part,  I  would  give  the  thing  another  turn,  and  would 
say,  that  to  know  the  body  of  the  Christian  and  universal  Church 
in  general,  there  is  but  one  mark  requisite  ;  viz.,  the  confession 
of  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  true  Messias  and  Redeemer  of 
mankind." 

These  ministers  made  a  distinction  between  addition  and 
subtraction.  If  a  church  subtracted  from  the  fundamental  arti- 
cles, she  could  not  be  the  true  Church.  But  if  she  only  added 
false  tenets,  even  as  matters  of  positive  faith,  she  did  not  cease 
to  be  the  true  Church,  as  "  God  applies  to  His  elect  what  good 
there  is,  hindering  whatsoever  of  human  institution  from  turn- 
ing to  their  prejudice  and  destruction." 

From  which  it  would  seem  to  follow  that  St.  Paul  was  mis- 
taken, in  pronouncing  a  curse  upon  those  who  add  to  or  take 
away  from  the  Gospel.  So,  too,  the  Council  of  Jerusalem  was 


RESULTS    OF    THE    PBOTESTANT    THEORY. 

mistaken,  in  condemning  the  heresy  requiring  the  addition  of 
circumcision  to  the  requirements  of  Christ's  law,  in  order  to 
salvation. 

The  minister  Jurieu  attributes  the  origin  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  unity  of  the  Church  to  the  third  century ;  and  ascribes  it  to 
Firmilian  and  his  bishops,  from  whom,  he  says,  it  passed  into 
Africa,  where  the  great  martyr,  St.  Cyprian,  he  says,  embraced 
it.  And  the  minister  gives  this  singular  explanation,  "  that  the 
false  idea  of  the  unity  of  the  Church  was  formed  on  the  history 
of  the  two  first  ages,  down  to  the  middle  or  end  of  the  third. 
We  must  not  wonder,"  says  he,  "  that  the  Church  accounted 
all  the  sects  which  existed  during  those  times,  as  entirely  sepa- 
rated from  the  body  of  the  Church,  for  that  was  true ; "  and 
he  adds :  u  it  was  at  that  time,  namely,  in  the  two  first  ages, 
down  to  the  middle  of  the  third,  that  they  got  a  habit  of  believ- 
ing that  heretics  did  not  in  any  manner  appertain  to  the 
Church." 

It  was,  therefore,  confessed,  that,  from  the  beginning  of  Chris- 
tianity down  to  the  middle  or  end  of  the  third  century,  all  the 
heretics  that  were  then  expelled  from  the  Church,  "  were  en- 
tirely separated  from  "  her — that  this  was  the  practice  of  the 
Church ;  but  as  it  suited  the  theory  of  this  minister,  he  insists 
that  those  heretics  denied  what  he  calls  the  fundamentals  of 
Christianity,  and  for  that  reason,  and  not  for  the  reason  that  all 
heretics  were  considered  as  cut  off  from  the  Church  when  ex- 
communicated, the  ancient  Church  looked  upon  them  as  out  of 
the  true  fold.  And  certainly,  in  the  days  of  St.  Paul,  all  con- 
demned heretics  were  held  as  not  in  any  manner,  appertaining  to 
the  Church.  If  heretics  at  all,  they  were  criminals  in  the  eye 
of  the  law  of  Christ,  in  the  same  way  as  murderers,  fornicators, 
and  others,  mentioned  by  the  apostle.  Heresy  of  every  kind 
excluded  from  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

These  views  of  the  ministers  were  generally  received  by  the 
Calvinists  of  France,  and  introduced  into  the  Lutheran  Churches 
hi  Germany  by  Calixtus,  one  of  the  most  learned  men  among 
them,  where  they  also  prevail  to  a  great  extent.  M.  Jurieu 
defines  the  Church  to  be  "  the  body  of  those  who  make  profes- 
sion of  believing  Jesus  Christ  the  true  Messias ;  a  body  divided 
into  a  great  number  of  sects." 


RESULTS    OF    THE    PROTESTANT   THEORY.  4:55 

§  6.  Protestant  ancestors — the  Vaudois. 

In  the  Confession  of  Augsburg,  and  in  the  Apology,  as  late 
as  1530,  Luther  and  his  followers  insisted  that  they  contended 
for.  nothing  contrary  to  the  Church  of  Rome — that  they  only 
opposed  certain  abuses  which  had  crept  into  the  Church,  as 
they  alleged,  without  any  certain  authority ;  and  Luther,  speak- 
ing of  this  Church  as  late  as  1534,  stated,  that  "she  is  the  true 
Church,  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth,  and  the  most  holy 
place." 

But  when  the  separation  from  the  Catholic  Church  became 
incurable,  as  the  true  Church  was  admitted  to  be  perpetual  and 
visible,  and  that  the  promises  of  Christ  were  given  to  her,  it  be- 
came necessary  to  seek  a  succession  through  some  body  of  pro- 
fessed Christians,  other  than  the  Church  of  Rome,  up  to  the 
days  of  the  apostles.  To  do  this,  however,  constituted  the 
great  difficulty.  There  had  been  heretics  existing  in  every  age, 
in  some  part  of  the  world.  Sect  after  sect,  to  the  number  of 
about  four  hundred,  had  arisen,  and  most  of  them  had  vanished 
before  the  time  of  Luther.  Some  continued  longer  than  others. 
As  one  went  down,  another  rose ;  and  so  they  had  succeeded 
each  other,  from  Simon  Magus  down  to  the  alleged  Reforma- 
tion. Among  so  great  a  number  and  variety,  it  would  seem, 
there  ought  to  have  been  no  difficulty  in  finding  good  and  wor- 
thy predecessors. 

But  those  sects  were  as  different  in  their  doctrines  and  prac- 
tices, as  they  were  different  in  the  terms  of  their  duration. 
Their  errors  were  both  great  and  various,  as  admitted  by  Prot- 
estants themselves.  They  not  only  differed  so  much  from  each 
other,  but  they  equally  differed  from  all  the  Protestant  parties. 
And  what  increased  the  difficulty  to  an  insurmountable  degree, 
was  the  fact,  that  those  various  sects,  while  they  differed  from 
the  Catholic  Church  upon  certain  points,  still  held  the  doctrines 
generally  denied  by  Protestants,  and  imputed  by  them  to  her 
as  errors.  And  not  only  so,  but  no  one  sect  could  be  found, 
that  had  existed  during  the  whole  period  from  the  apostles  to 
Luther.  To  trace  succession  through  several  different  and  dis- 
cordant heretical  sects,  with  no  single  one  of  which  any  one  of 
the  Protestant  parties  could  agree,  even  in  fundamental  and 


456        RESULTS  OF  THE  PROTESTANT  THEORY. 

material  respects,  would  seem  to  have  been  a  very  illogical 
attempt. 

But  the  attempt  was  made.  To  say,  in  uncertain  and  gen» 
eral  terms,  that  they  traced  their  succession  through  those  sects 
who  had  renounced  the  authority  of  the  Catholic  Church,  would 
have  been  unbecoming  sensible  and  candid  men,  and  would  have 
admitted  a  fraternity  with  all.  It  therefore  became  necessary 
to  specify  the  particular  sects  through  which  this  alleged  suc- 
cession was  to  be  traced.  Among  the  sects  selected  as  ances- 
tors, especially  by  the  Calvimsts,  was  that  of  the  Vaudois,  or 
poor  men  of  Lyons,  who  took  their  rise  under  Peter  Waldo,  in 
1160.  Waldo  was  a  merchant  of  that  city,  and  was  so  much 
affected  by  the  sudden  death  of  one  of  his  brother  merchants, 
that  he  at  once  sold  all  his  property,  distributed  the  proceeds 
to  the  poor,  and  afterwards  led  a  life  of  poverty  himself*  Hence 
their  peculiar  tenets  have  an  affinity  with  the  historical  circum- 
stances connected  with  their  origin.  Their  leading  tenets  were : 

1.  That  it  was  unlawful  for  the  clergy  to  own  any  property. 

2.  That  neither  lands  nor  people  ought  to  be  divided.     3.  That 
every  oath  is  a  mortal  sin.     4.  That  all  princes  and  judges  are 
damned,  because  they  condemn  malefactors  contrary  to  these 
words :  "  Vengeance  is  mine,  saith  the  Lord ;  "  and  "  Let  both 
grow  together  until  the  harvest."     5.  That  every  lay  person, 
even  a  woman,  ought  to  preach.     6.  That  the  functions  of  min- 
isters, and  the  validity  of  their  acts,  depend  upon  their  personal 
virtue.      7.  They  held  the  seven  sacraments,  except  Orders. 
8.  They  held  Transubstantiation.     9.  They  knew  nothing  about 
the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  alone,  nor  of  the  impossi- 
bility of  falling  from  grace,  nor  the  doctrine  of  Luther  and  Cal- 
vin denying  free  will. 

As  they  made  the  ministry  depend  upon  personal  merit,  and 
required  extreme  poverty  to  constitute  that  merit,  they  repu- 
diated the  authority  of  the  Pope  and  bishops,  and  held  the  See 
of  Rome  as  the  harlot  of  the  Revelations.  They  held  that  a 
holy  layman  could  administer  the  sacraments  as  well  as  a  holy 
priest.  They  rejected  the  Mass,  Purgatory,  and  the  Invocation 
of  Saints.* 

*  Va.  B.  xi.,  where  the  subject  is  very  fully  treated. 


RESULTS   OF   THE   PROTESTANT   THEORY.  45? 

But  the  difficulty  of  tracing  succession  for  more  than  three 
centuries,  through  this  singular  people,  became  very  great  when 
they  held  so  many  doctrines  condemned  by  both  Protestants 
and  Catholics ;  such  as  forbidding  the  clergy  to  hold  any  prop 
erty,  thus  making  poverty  an  essential  of  religion,  when  it  was 
only  a  counsel  of  perfection ;  that  property  ought  to  be  held  in 
common  by  the  laity ;  that  oaths  were  sinful ;  that  the  punish- 
ment of  death  could  not  be  inflicted,  by  the  state,  upon  the 
vilest  offenders ;  that  all  lay  persons,  even  women,  ought  to 
preach  ;  and  that  the  validity  of  the  sacraments  did  not  depend 
upon  the  virtue  Christ  had  given  them,  but  upon  the  personal 
merits  of  the  administrator.  But,  besides  these  errors,  (con- 
demned by  both  parties,)  these  people  held  Transubstantiation, 
and  six  out  of  the  seven  sacraments  held  by  Catholics.  It 
would  seem  to  have  been  difficult  to  find  any  affinity  between 
the  Calvinists  and  the  Vaudois.  Besides,  the  Vaudois  knew 
nothing  of  justification  by  faith  alone,  predestination,  and  final 
perseverance.  In  claiming  them  as  predecessors,  the  Calvinists 
were  compelled  to  overlook  the  grossest  alleged  errors,  and  also 
to  suppress  their  own  cardinal  doctrines.  They  claimed  to  be 
the  successors  of  a  sect,  that  needed  more  reformation  than  the 
Catholics,  (from  whom  they  separated,)  according  to  their  own 
theory. 

But  the  greatest  difficulty  lay  in  the  undeniable  fact,  that 
Peter  Waldo,  and  all  his  followers,  were  mere  laymen,  who 
preached  without  a  vocation,  either  regular  or  extraordinary. 
They  had  never  claimed  any  extraordinary  ministry.  They  per- 
formed no  miracles,  nor  claimed  that  any  were  performed,  to 
prove  such  an  extraordinary  mission.  They  claimed  no  regular 
mission,  for  they  denied  its  necessity.  The  Vaudois,  then,  ob- 
tained their  authority  to  preach  in  neither  of  the  ways  admitted 
and  required  by  the  Lutherans  and  Calvinists.  In  claiming  the 
Vaudois  as  predecessors,  the  Calvinists,  in  violation  of  their  own 
theory,  claimed  to  be  engrafted  upon  a  branch  that  did  not  con- 
nect with  the  trunk  itself.  Besides,  this  sect  only  extended 
back  to  the  year  1160.  How  were  they  to  get  beyond  that 
period  ?  Efforts  were  made  to  trace  the  origin  of  the  Vaudois 
back  to  the  time  of  Constantino  the  Great,  but  these  efforts 

failed.     It  was  claimed  that  in  the  days  of  Sylvester  I.,  wher 
40 


458  RESULTS    OF   THE    PROTESTANT    THEORY. 

that  Christian  emperor  endowed  the  Church  with  temporal 
revenues  for  ecclesiastical  purposes,  that  one  of  the  Pope's  com 
panions,  called  Leo,  withdrew  from  his  communion  with  his  fol- 
lowers, and  abided  in  their  poverty  and  simplicity  of  faith. 
This  error  had  been  embraced  by  Leger,  one  of  the  Vaudois 
Barbes,  (as  they  called  their  pastors,)  who  was  their  most  cele- 
brated historian,  though  a  very  bold  and  ignorant  man.  But, 
unfortunately,  the  ground  upon  which  the  alleged  withdrawal 
of  Leo  and  his  followers  was  based,  could  not  be  approved  by 
the  Calvinists.  And  what  was  still  more  against  the  whole  as- 
sumption, was  the  fact  that  no  historical  proof  could  be  found 
among  the  writings  of  the  ancient  Fathers,  nor  in  the  proceed- 
ings of  any  of  the  councils.  "We  have,"  says  Bossuet,  "  in  the 
councils  held  in  the  communion  of  the  Roman  Church,  anathemas 
pronounced  against  an  infinity  of  different  sects :  we  have  the 
catalogues  of  heresies  drawn  by  St.  Epiphanius,  by  St.  Austin, 
and  several  other  church  authors.  The  most  obscure  and  the 
least  followed  sects — those  which  appeared  in  a  corner  of  the 
world,  as  that  of  certain  women  called  Collyridians,  who  were 
to  be  met  with  in  some  part  of  Arabia  ;  that  of  the  Tertullian- 
ists  or  Ahelians,  who  were  only  in  Carthage,  or  in  some  villages 
near  Hippo,  and  many  others  equally  obscure — did  not  escape 
their  knowledge.  The  zeal  of  pastors  that  labored  to  bring 
back  the  strayed  sheep,  discovered  all  to  save  all :  none  but 
those  separatists  on  account  of  ecclesiastical  revenues  were  un- 
known to  everybody."  * 

*  V.  B.  x.,  n.  5.  The  authority  of  Waddington,  the  Protestant  historian, 
sustains  this  statement  of  Bossuet. 

"In  our  journey  back  towards  the  apostolic  times,"  says  this  author,  "  these 
separatists  conduct  us  as  far  as  the  beginning  of  the  twelfth  century;  but  when 
we  would  advance  farther,  we  are  interrupted  by  a  broad  region  of  darkness  and 
uncertainty.  A  spark  of  hope  is  indeed  suggested  by  the  history  of  the  Vaudois. 
Their  origin  is  not  ascertained  by  any  authentic  record,  and  being  immemorial, 
it  may  have  been  coeval  with  the  introduction  of  Christianity. 

But  since  there  is  not  one  direct  proof  of  their  existence  during  that  long 
space  ;  since  they  have  never  been  certainly  discovered  by  the  curiosity  of  any 
writer,  nor  detected  by  the  inquisitorial  eye  of  any  orthodox  bishop,  nor  named 
by  any  Pope,  or  council,  or  any  church  record,  chronicle,  or  memorial,  we  are 
not  justiried  in  attaching  any  historical  credit  to  their  mere  unsupported  tradi- 
tion. It  is  sufficient  to  prove  that  they  had  an  earlier  existence  than  the  twelfth 


RESULTS    OF    THE    PROTESTANT    THEORY.  4:59 

§  7.  The  Bohemian  Brethren. 

Among  the  obscure  sects  existing  at  the  beginning  of  the 
Reformation,  was  that  of  the  Bohemian  Brethren.  The  Real 
Presence  had  been  impugned  by  the  Manichean  Heretics  of  Or- 
leans in  1017,  and  by  Beringarius  in  1030,  who  recanted  his 
errors,  and  died  in  the  Catholic  Church.  In  the  fourteenth 
century,  this  doctrine  was  impugned  by  Wickliffe,  as  well  as 
other  doctrines  of  the  Catholic  Church.  Wickliffe  also  re- 
nounced his  doctrine,  and  died  in  the  Catholic  Church.  Among 
the  disciples  of  Wickliffe  was  John  Huss,  who,  however,  dis- 
agreed with  Wickliffe  about  the  Real  Presence.  The  only  two 
points  of  Catholic  doctrine  disputed  by  Huss  were,  communion 
under  one  kind,  and  the  Pope.  In  other  respects,  he  was  a 
Catholic.  After  his  death  two  sects  arose  under  his  name,  the 
Calixtins  and  the  Taborites.  The  Taborites  were  so  cruel  and 
seditious,  that  they  have  been  alike  condemned  by  Catholics 
and  Protestants.  The  Calixtins,  on  the  other  hand,  only  objected 
that  the  cup  was  withheld  from  the  laity,  and  were  willing  to 
recognize  the  authority  of  the  Pope  if  this  privilege  were  grant- 
ed to  them.  These  Calixtins,  it  was  said,  "  romanized  in  every 
thing  but  the  cup."  To  reform  them,  the  tradesmen  placed  at 
their  head  one  Kelesiski,  a  master  shoemaker,  who  drew  up  for 
them  a  body  of  doctrine,  called  the  Forms  of  Kelesiski.  After* 

century ;  but  that  they  had  been  perpetuated  through  eight  or  nine  centuries, 
uncommemorated  abroad,  and  without  any  national  monument  to  attest  their 
existence,  is  much  more  than  we  can  venture,  on  such  evidence,  to  assert.  Here, 
then,  the  golden  chain  of  our  apostolic  descent  disappears ;  and  though  it  may 
exist,  buried  in  the  darkness  of  those  previous  ages,  and  though  some  writers 
have  seemed  to  discern  a  few  detached  links  which  they  diligently  exhibited, 
there  is  still  much  wanting  to  complete  the  continuity."  (Page  554  of  the  His- 
tory of  the  Church,  from  the  earliest  ages,  by  Rev.  Geo.  Waddington,  A.M.,  Fel- 
low of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge,  and  Prebendary  of  Ferring,  in  the  Cathedral 
Church  of  Chichester:  New  York  edition,  1835.  Cited  by  Bishop  Purcell,  in 
Campbell  and  Purcell's  Debate,  at  Cincinnati,  1837,  p.  24,  25.) 

From  this  extract  it  appears  that  the  most  that  Protestants  can  say  in  refer- 
ence to  the  links  necessary  to  complete  their  alleged  chain  of  succession  is,  that 
they  "  may  exist  buried  in  the  darkness  of  those  previous  ages."  When  we  have 
so  many  Christian  writers  from  the  third  to  the  sixth  age,  and  yet  no  mention  is 
made  of  this  sect,  all  we  can  certainly  say  is,  that  there  is  a  bare  possibility  ot 
the  continued  existence  of  such  a  sect. 


460  RESULTS    OF   THE    PROTESTANT    THEORY. 

wards  they  chose  themselves  a  pastor  named  Matthias  Conraldi, 
and  openly  separated  from  the  Calixtins  in  1467.  In  their 
Apology  of  1532,  the  Bohemian  Brethren  admit  they  were  made 
up  "  of  the  meaner  sort,  and  some  Bohemian  priests  in  small 
numbers,  all  put  together  but  a  handful  of  men,  a  small  rem- 
nant, and  the  despicable  refuse  left  in  the  world  by  Johr> 
Huss."*  Their  leading  and  distinctive  tenets  were — 1.  The 
necessity  of  rebaptizing  all  those  who  joined  them  from  other 
churches.  2.  That  the  efficacy  of  sacraments  depends  upon  the 
merit  of  the  administrator.  3.  They  rejected  the  Mass.  4.  They 
rejected  the  authority  of  the  Pope.  5.  They  rejected  Transub- 
stantiation.  They  agreed  with  the  Catholics  in  the  seven  sac- 
raments, in  observing  days  of  fast,  in  the  celibacy  of  the  clergy, 
and  the  perpetual  virginity  of  the  Blessed  Virgin.  Luther  re- 
proached them  for  knowing  nothing  of  the  common  foundation 
of  the  Reformation,  justification  by  faith,  for  they  "placed  it," 
he  said,  "in  faith  and  works  together,  as  many  fathers  had 
done ;  and  John  Huss  was  wedded  to  this  opinion."  f  As  for 
the  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence,  it  was  matter  of  some  doubt 
whether  they  held  it  or  not.  Their  language  was  confused  and 
uncertain  upon  this  point.  They  were  claimed  both  by  the  Lu- 
therans and  Sacramentarians.  It  seems,  however,  that  they 
held  the  doctrine,  as  they  afterwards  joined  the  Lutherans. 

The  Lutherans,  in  the  Preface  they  placed  before  the  Breth- 
ren's Apology,  and  printed  at  Wittenberg  in  Luther's  time,  say 
that  in  this  small  and  ignorant  body  of  men,  "  the  Church  of 
God  was  preserved  when  she  was  thought  entirely  lost."  J 

At  the  beginning  of  their  separation,  they  despatched  three 
deputations  into  Greece,  in  quest  of  other  Christians  holding  the 
same  doctrines  with  them;  but  the  search  was  fruitless,  and 
none  could  be  found. 

In  reference  to  these  Bohemian  Brethren,  Bossuet  remarks : 
u  These  are  the  men  whom  Protestants  admire.  Does  the  ques- 
tion turn  on  condemning  the  Church  of  Rome  ?  They  never 
cease  to  upbraid  us  with  the  ignorance  of  her  priests  and  monks. 
Is  the  question  regarding  the  ignorant  individuals  of  these  lat- 
ter ages,  who  have  set  up  for  reforming  the  Church  by  schism  ? 

*  V.  xi.  170-4.  f  Id.  179.  J  Id.  176. 


RESULTS    OF   THE    PROTESTANT   THEORY.  461 

they  are  fishermen  turned  apostles,  although  their  ignorance 
stands  eternally  on  record,  from  the  first  step  they  took."  ( Va. 
B.  xi.  176.) 

It  was  in  this  small  sect,  in  one  corner  of  Bohemia,  that  the 
Church  was  preserved,  as  the  Lutherans  insisted,  and  through 
this  body  they  were  willing  to  trace  their  succession.  But 
there  were  many  difficulties  in  the  way.  The  Bohemian  Breth- 
ren were  only  a  small  party,  who  had  separated  from  another 
small  remnant  of  Hussites  the  Calixtins,  the  only  Hussites  in 
existence  at  the  time.  They  knew  nothing  of  the  cardinal  doc- 
trine of  Justification.  They  believed  in  Works.  Besides  that, 
they  had  no  vocation  ordinary  or  extraordinary.  They  were 
mere  laymen,  who  made  their  own  minister.  They  went,  ac- 
cording to  Luther,  without  being  sent.  They  held  the  seven 
sacraments — celibacy  of  the  clergy — days  of  fast,  and  other 
Catholic  views  so  much  opposed  by  the  Lutherans.  In  addi- 
tion, they  held  the  tenet  borrowed  from  the  Manicheans,  that 
the  validity  of  the  sacraments  depended  upon  the  virtue  of  the 
administrator,  as  if  the  virtue  given  them  by  Christ,  could  de- 
pend upon  such  a  circumstance.  They  also  held  invalid  all  bap- 
tism conferred  by  any  other  church.  This  was  assuming  to  be 
the  only  true  church.  But  the  greatest  difficulty  in  the  matter 
AV  as  that  these  Brethren  were  about  as  modern  as  the  Lutherans. 
They  had  only  existed  some  fifty  years  when  the  Reformation 
began.  It  would  then  be  indispensable  to  find  the  True  Church 
in  some  other  body  of  professed  Christians,  before  the  days  of 
Kelesiski,  the  founder  of  the  Brethren. 


Among  the  other  sects  claimed  by  the  Protestants,  at  least 
by  the  Calvinists,  as  their  predecessors,  were  the  Albigenses, 
As  Beringarius  and  Wickliffe  organized  no  churches,  and  re- 
canted their  errors  and  died  in  the  Catholic  Church,  they  could 
not  be  claimed  as  ancestors.  Beringarius  impugned  but  one 
article,  and  Wickliffe  advocated  many  confessed  and  manifest 
errors,  that  all  parties  of  the  Reformation  condemned  no  less 
than  the  Catholics.  However  much,  therefore,  some  of  the 
principles  advocated  and  recanted  by  these  men,  especially 
Wickliffe,  were  approved  by  the  Calvinists,  as  well  as  others  of 


462        RESULTS  OF  THE  PROTESTANT  THEORY. 

the  Reformation,  when  taken  as  a  whole  they  could  not  but  be 
rejected. 

But  in  claiming  the  Albigenses  as  ancestors,  the  Calvinists 
admitted  a  fraternity  with  a  sect  that  only  extended  back  to  the 
eleventh  age,  and  was  far  more  objectionable  in  doctrine  than 
the  Yaudois.  The  Albigenses,  as  proven  by  Bossuet  in  the 
eleventh  Book  of  his  Variations,  was  but  a  branch  of  the  Ma- 
nicheans,  and  held  their  principal  errors,  with  some  superadded 
tenets  of  their  own. 

The  fundamental  principles  of  Manicheism  may  be  found  in 
Plato,  and  sprung  from  Paganism.  Manes,  a  Persian,  towards 
the  close  of  the  third  century,  endeavored  to  engraft  these  prin- 
ciples upon  Christianity.  The  theory  turned  upon  the  origin 
of  good  and  evil.  These  being  so  precisely  opposite  in  their 
nature,  must  of  course  spring  from  different  sources.  In  con- 
formity with  this  idea,  they  held  the  existence  of  two  Creators, 
one  the  source  of  good,  the  other  the  source  of  evil.  These 
two  Creators  were  enemies  by  consequence,  and  in  their  strife 
one  filled  the  world  with  good,  the  other  with  evil.  All  the 
peculiar  views  of  the  Manicheans  may  be  traced  as  logical  con- 
sequences drawn  from  these  principles. 

These  heretics  drew  consequences  from  these  principles  no 
less  absurd  than  infamous.  They  held  the  creation  of  the  world, 
of  men,  of  all  animals,  and  of  all  things  visible,  as  the  work  of 
the  evil  principle,  and  Heaven,  the  human  soul,  and  all  things 
invisible,  as  the  w^ork  of  God,  the  infinitely  good  principle.  Upon 
these  grounds  they  rejected  the  Old  Testament,  holding  it  as 
the  product  of  the  evil  principle.  As  Christ  was  the  son  of  God, 
they  denied  the  incarnation,  and  held  his  body  to  have  been  but 
a  phantom,  a  body  in  appearance  only.  Our  bodies  being  the 
creation  of  the  bad  principle,  and  our  souls  of  the  good,  it  waa 
not  lawful  to  unite  the  good  with  the  evil ;  and  therefore  it  was 
wicked  to  beget  children,  and  marriage  was  for  that  reason  pro- 
hibited. Every  thing  proceeding  from  generation  proceeded 
from  the  wicked  principle,  and  was  impure  by  nature,  and  there- 
fore the  use  of  all  meats,  as  well  as  wine,  was  criminal. 

These  people  made  extraordinary  pretensions  to  virtue,  and 
were  exceedingly  seductive  in  their  discourses,  in  which  they 
covertly  concealed  the  most  glaring  absurdities  of  the  theory. 


RESULTS    OF    THK    PROTESTANT    THEORY.  463 

They  adopted  a  system  of  secrecy,  consisting  of  several  different 
degrees.  Those  who  were  called  auditors  were  not  let  into  the 
whole  mystery,  which  was  kept  close  from  the  probationers. 
The  elect  only,  after  passing  through  several  gradations,  were 
admitted  to  the  whole  secret.  This  secrecy  was  one  of  the 
principal  causes,  not  only  of  the  wide-spread  and  long-continued 
success  of  the  sect,  but  also  of  the  artifices  and  dissimulation 
practised  by  the  Manicheans. 

Acting  upon  this  principle,  the  Manicheans  mixed  with  the 
Catholics,  attended  their  churches,  acknowledged  their  doc- 
trines, and  dissembled  their  own,  propagating  them  by  degrees, 
and  as  a  secret,  in  secret  corners  and  places.  They  assumed 
the  appearance  of  extraordinary  piety  and  poverty.  Faustus, 
the  Manichean,  thus  speaks  to  Catholics,  as  stated  by  St.  Aus- 
tin :  "  You  ask  me  whether  I  receive  the  gospel  ?  you  see  I  do, 
inasmuch  as  I  observe  what  the  gospel  prescribes ;  of  you  I 
ought  to  ask  whether  you  receive  it,  since  I  see  no  mark  of  it  in 
your  lives.  For  my  part,  I  have  forsaken  father,  mother,  wife, 
and  children,  gold,  silver,  meat,  drink,  delights,  pleasures ;  con- 
tent with  what  is  sufficient  for  life  from  day  to  day.  I  am  poor, 
I  am  peaceable,  I  weep,  I  suffer  from  hunger  and  thirst,  I  am 
persecuted  for  justice'  sake,  and  do  you  question  whether  I  re- 
ceive the  gospel  ?  " 

As  this  sect  denied  the  existence  of  Christ's  body,  they  of 
course  denied  the  Real  Presence ;  and  as  they  refused  the  use 
of  wine,  when  they  communed  with  Catholics  they  only  received 
the  bread.  They  were  detected  by  St.  Leo  from  this  circum- 
stance, and  that  they  might  be  distinguished,  all  were  required 
to  receive  in  both  kinds. 

The  sect  grew  strong  in  Armenia,  a  province  bordering  on 
Persia,  in  the  seventh  century.  They  were  there  settled,  or 
confirmed  by  one  named  Paul,  and  hence  took  the  name  of 
Paulicians.  These  Paulicians  held  a  great  aversion  to  the  Im- 
ages of  Christ  crucified,  as  they  denied  his  crucifixion ;  to  the 
Virgin  Mary,  as  they  held  her  not  to  have  been  the  mother  of 
Christ ;  and  to  the  Eucharist.  From  Armenia  they  sent  preach 
ers  to  Bulgaria,  where  the  heresy  took  deep  root,  and  they 
were  hence  called  Bulgarians.  About  the  year  1000,  they  first 
made  their  appearance  in  the  Latin  Church.  An  Italian  woman 


RESULTS    OF   THE    PROTEST  ANT    THEORY. 

brought  it  into  France,  where  it  took  root  at  Orleans.  In  Italy 
they  were  called  Cathari,  that  is  to  say,  pure.  It  was  intro- 
duced into  Italy  from  Bulgaria.  It  spread  into  Languedoc, 
Toulouse,  and  especially  into  Gascony,  where  they  were  called 
Albigenses,  in  token  of  the  place  they  carne  from,  namely,  from 
Bulgaria.  They  also  spread  into  Germany  and  England.  Those 
in  England  were  from  Gascony,  and  were  called  Poplicans  or 
Publicans.  It  was  stated  by  Renier,  who  wrote  about  the  year 
1254,  that  in  his  time,  when  the  sect  was  weakened,  "the  per- 
fect Cathari  did  not  exceed  four  thousand  in  all  Christendom," 
but  that  "  the  believers  were  innumerable,  a  computation  which 
several  times  had  been  made  amongst  them."  The  perfect  Cath- 
ari were  those  admitted  to  the  highest  secrets,  while  the  be- 
lievers were  made  up  of  all  sorts  of  people. 

These  various  branches  of  these  heretics,  though  often 
i  hanging  some  of  the  doctrines  of  the  sect,  and  often  differing 
from  each  other  in  many  particulars,  were  yet  always  distin- 
guished by  the  great  leading  principle  of  their  origin.  They  all 
rejected  marriage,  the  Old  Testament,  and  the  use  of  meats. 
They  generally  held  oaths  unlawful,  opposed  all  ordination  of 
the  clergy,  held  that  the  efficacy  of  the  sacraments  depended 
upon  the  personal  virtue  of  the  administrator,  and  that  all  good 
persons  could  administer  the  sacraments.  They  generally  re- 
jected baptism,  the  invocation  of  saints,  oblations  for  the  dead, 
and  the  resurrection. 

This  very  condensed  statement  of  the  leading  features  of 
these  heretics,  is  made  up  from  Bossuet,  to  whom  I  must  refer 
for  more  full  and  accurate  information.  The  distinguished  au- 
thor, in  the  close  of  his  account,  remarks  : 

"  Such  were  the  Albigenses,  by  the  testimony  of  all  their 
contemporary  authors,  not  one  excepted.  The  Protestants 
blush  for  them ;  and  all  they  can  answer  is,  that  these  excesses, 
these  errors,  and  all  these  disorders  of  the  Albigenses,  are  the 
calumnies  of  their  enemies.  But  have  they  so  much  as  one 
proof  for  what  they  advance,  or  even  one  author  of  those  times, 
and  for  more  than  four  hundred  years  after,  to  support  them  in 
it  ?  For  our  parts,  we  produce  as  many  witnesses  as  have  been 
authors  in  the  whole  universe  who  have  treated  of  this  sect. 
Those  that  were  educated  in  their  principles  have  revealed  to 


RESULTS  OF  THE  PROTESTANT  THEORY.        465 

us  their  abominable  secrets  after  their  conversion.  We  trace 
up  the  damnable  sect  even  to  its  source ;  we  show  whence  it 
came,  which  way  it  steered  its  course,  all  its  characteristics,  and 
its  whole  pedigree,  branching  from  the  Manichean  root." 

One  cannot  but  be  astonished  at  the  errors  of  this  sect ;  and 
yet  there  is  no  cause  for  surprise.  It  is  but  another  proof  of  the 
truth  of  Christianity,  as  this  sect  was  explicitly  foretold  by  St. 
Paul,  in  the  fourth  chapter  of  his  first  Epistle  to  Timothy : 

"  Now  the  Spirit  speaketh  expressly,  that  in  the  latter  times 
some  shall  depart  from  the  faith,  giving  heed  to  seducing  spirits, 
and  doctrines  of  devils ;  speaking  lies  in  hypocrisy,  having  their 
conscience  seared  with  a  hot  iron ;  forbidding  to  marry,  and 
commanding  to  abstain  from  meats,  which  God  hath  created  to 
be  received  with  thanksgiving  of  them  which  believe  and  know 
the  truth.  For  every  creature  of  God  is  good,  and  nothing  to 
be  refused,  if  it  be  received  with  thanksgiving  ;  for  it  is  sancti- 
fied with  the  word  of  God  and  prayer." 

The  Fathers  are  unanimously  agreed  that  this  prediction  had 
reference  to  the  Manicheans,  whose  tenets,  and  the  reasons 
they  gave  for  them,  taken  in  connection  with  their  acts  and 
history,  so  completely  fill  up  the  picture  drawn  by  St.  Paul. 
The  apostle  not  only  points  out  specifically  the  two  false  doc- 
trines to  be  taught,  but  with  wonderful  brevity  and  accuracy 
gives  us  the  character  of  the  teachers,  the  source  of  their  doc- 
trines, and  the  manner  of  their  teaching.  The  teachers  were  "  se- 
ducing spirits"  who  taught  the  "  doctrines  of  devils"  by  "  speak- 
ing lies  in  hypocrisy  "  with  "  seared  consciences."  The  mode 
of  teaching  adopted  by  these  heretics — their  hypocrisy — their 
secrecy — their  enchantments — their  extraordinary  pretensions 
to  superior  piety — every  part  of  their  conduct,  pointed  them 
out  as  "  seducing  spirits,  speaking  lies  in  hypocrisy."  And  well 
might  St.  Paul  say  they  would  teach  the  "doctrines  of 
devils,"  since  they  taught  that  God  did  not  create  the  world 
and  the  things  therein,  thus  robbing  Him  of  the  honor  due  to 
the  Sovereign  Creator  of  the  universe,  but  giving  it  to  the  evil 
principle ;  thereby  flattering  the  pride  of  the  evil  spirits,  and 
pampering  their  jealousy  against  God,  and  blaspheming  the 
Creator  by  imputing  impurities  to  His  works. 

But  the  apostle  not  only  points  out  the  two  doctrines  that 


466         EESULTS  OF  THE  PROTESTANT  THEORY. 

distinguished  these  heretics,  and  at  the  same  time  gives  us  the 
character  of  the  teachers,  the  source  of  their  errors,  and  their 
manner  of  teaching;  but  he  is  careful  to  defeat  tbe  very  grounds 
upon  which  they  predicated  these  doctrines.  For,  whereas  they 
attributed  the  creation  of  the  bodies  of  men  and  of  animals  to 
the  evil  principle,  and  from  thence  deduced  the  conclusion  that 
the  propagation  of  the  human  race,  and  the  use  of  meats,  were 
criminal,  St.  Paul  expressly  alleged  that  "  God  created  meats  to 
be  received  with  thanksgiving  ; "  and  not  only  so,  but  that 
"  every  creature  of  God  is  go"od,  and  nothing  to  be  refused,  if 
received  with  thanksgiving :  for  it  is  sanctified  with  the  word  of 
God  and  prayer."  Nothing  could  be  more  clear  and  explicit  in 
pointing  out  the  teachers,  their  character,  their  manner  of  teach- 
ing, the  doctrines  taught,  the  source  from  which  they  sprang, 
being  the  "  doctrines  of  devils ; "  but  also  in  anticipating  and 
confuting  the  false  grounds  upon  which  these  doctrines  of  devils 
were  based,  than  those  brief  and  accurate  passages  of  the 
apostle.  That  this  sect  filled  up  fully  the  entire  picture  of  the 
apostle,  there  would  seem  to  be  no  possible  doubt.  Each  and 
every  portion  of  the  prediction,  is  completely  fulfilled  in  their 
character,  doctrines,  manner  of  teaching,  and  the  grounds  upon 
which  their  tenets  were  based. 

In  considering  the  peculiar  doctrines  of  the  Yaudois,  the 
Bohemian  Brethren,  and  the  Albigenses,  claimed  as  ancestors 
of  the  early  Protestant  Churches,  and  especially  by  the  Calvinists, 
wnlle  it  is  evident  they  differed  in  many  great  and  leading  re- 
spects  from  each  other,  from  the  Catholic  Church,  and  from  each 
and  all  the  Protestant  parties  themselves,  it  must  be  conceded 
that  these  sects  did  hold  certain  tenets  in  common.  With  many 
of  the  sects  of  old,  and  with  Wickliffe,  they  held  that  the  validity 
of  the  sacraments  was  lost  if  administered  by  wicked  men, 
although  such  wickedness  was  hidden  in  the  heart,  and  could 
only  be  known  to  God. 

§  9.  Reflections. 

This  seems  to  have  been  a  common  ground  occupied  by 
many  sects  of  heretics,  before  the  Reformation,  and  was  based 
upon  some  great  reason  and  necessity.  In  all  ages  those  who 
rejected  the  authority  of  the  Church,  were  compelled,  like 


RESULTS    OF   THE    PROTESTANT    THEORY.  467 

Luther,  to  adopt  some  theory  having  at  least  the  appearance  of 
logical  consistency  in  its  fundamental  principles.  The  Church 
being  in  the  prior  possession  of  the  governing  principle  of  au- 
thority, those  who  denied  her  power,  were  compelled  to  adopt 
the  Scriptures  as  the  entire  code,  and  the  right  of  private  interpre- 
tation in  the  last  resort,  or  renounce  their  opinions.  The  prin- 
ciple that  the  virtue  of  the  sacraments  depended  upon  the  per- 
sonal character  of  the  administrator,  and  not  upon  his  official 
powers,  when  legitimately  extended,  would  necessarily  set  aside 
all  authority  in  the  Church  as  a  united  and  visible  body  of  men  ; 
and  would  make  the  authority  of  teachers  depend  upon  their 
personal  merits  alone.  If  the  sacraments  necessarily  lost  their 
validity  wjien  administered  by  a  wicked,  but  regularly  ordained 
minister,  then  the  only  logical  test  required  under  this  rule, 
must  be  the  personal  virtue  of  the  individual.  This  virtue  was 
the  efficient  test  of  the  right  to  administer.  And  as  this  personal 
virtue  did  not  depend  upon  the  Church  in  any  way,  and  yet 
constituted  the  only  qualification  required,  of  course  the  author- 
ity of  the  Church  could  not  exist  in  the  contemplation  of  such  a 
theory.  Hence  these  sects  held  that  any  good  person  could 
preach  and  administer  the  sacraments. 

In  contemplating  the  character,  tenets,  and  history  of  these 
sects,  one  cannot  but  be  struck  with  the  great  and  perplexing 
necessity  that  compelled  the  Reformers  to  admit  a  fraternity 
with  them.  The  Lutherans,  Calvinists,  and  Zuinglians,  had 
all  admitted,  as  fundamental  truths,  that  the  true  Church  was 
visible,  Catholic,  and  perpetual,  and  that  the  promises  of  Christ 
appertained  to  her.  As  a  part  of  this  idea  of  the  Church,  they 
insisted  that  ministers  must  have  a  vocation,  either  ordinary  or 
extraordinary.  Having  assumed  these  grounds,  they  were  then 
compelled  to  find  a  visible  church  always  existing  from  the  days 
of  the  apostles  down  to  the  days  of  Luther.  In  attempting  to 
do  this,  they  displayed  extraordinary  industry,  talent,  and  re- 
search.  One  cannot  but  admire  their  intense  perseverance  and 
assiduity,  as  well  as  the  great  ability  they  exhibited. 

But  all  the  abilities  in  the  world  cannot  annihilate  the  in- 
flexible facts  of  history.  Nor  can  any  amount  of  ability  recon 
cile  irreconcilable  principles.  Misguided  abilities  may  mistake 
and  conceal,  for  a  time,  the  facts  of  history,  and,  for  the  mo- 


468         RESULTS  OF  THE  PROTESTANT  THEORY. 

ment,  may  render  apparently  consistent,  inconsistent  theories  ^ 
but  time  is  certain,  sooner  or  later,  to  expose  the  true  state  of 
the  case.  The  truth  must  and  will  stand  revealed  at  some 
period.  Intrepid  and  right-minded  men  will,  sooner  or  later, 
carry  out  the  main  principles  of  a  theory,  in  all  their  ramifica- 
tions, to  their  logical  and  legitimate  results. 

In  searching  for  the  true  visible  Church  before  the  Reforma- 
tion, they  were  placed  in  a  painful  predicament.  They  denied 
it  to  be  the  Church  of  Rome.  If  she  had  been  the  true  Church, 
they  ought  to  have  heard  her.  If  she  had  been  the  true 
Church,  then  there  was  no  necessity  or  justification  for  destroy- 
ing her,  and  reconstructing  the  alleged  true  Church  upon  her 
ruins.  When,  therefore,  they  turned  from  her  to  seek  for 
another,  where  was  it  to  be  found  ?  The  Vaudois*  extended 
only  back  to  1160,  and  the  Bohemian  Brethren  only  to  1467, 
and  the  Albigenses  were  only  a  branch  of  the  Manicheans, 
holding  their  essential  and  fundamental  errors  in  the  main.  If 
the  Albigenses  were  not  Manicheans,  and  all  the  histories  at- 
testing that  fact  were  false,  still  they  only  extended  back-  to 
about  the  year  1000.  If,  on  the  contrary,  they  were  Mani- 
cheans, and  therefore  could  be  traced  back  to  Marcian,  in  the 
second  century,  who  taught  the  existence  of  two  principles,  the 
first  one  good  and  the  other  evil,  and  prohibited  marriage,  but 
not  the  use  of  meats,  then  the  line  of  succession  would  be  al- 
most long  enough.  But  the  abominable  errors  of  these  people 
were  too  great.  They  could  not  be  claimed  as  the  true  Church. 
The  only  ground  upon  which  the  Albigenses  were  claimed  was, 
that  the  excesses  charged  against  them  were  calumnies.  But  to 
accuse  so  many  authors,  exhibiting  every  evidence  of  sincerity, 
of  such  excessive  calumny,  were  indulging  a  most  captious  and 
suspicious  spirit. 

If  the  Manichean  sect,  whose  beginning  could  be  traced 
clearly  to  the  second  century,  if  not  to  Simon  Magus,  in  the 
first,  and  which  continued  without  interruption  near,  if  not 
quite,  to  the  fifteenth  century,  and  extending  over  the  world  so 
far,  and  containing  such  numbers,  could  not  be  claimed  as  the 
true  Church  on  account  of  their  manifest  errors,  then  it  was 
clear  that  the  true  Church  must  be  made  up  of  various  short- 
lived, independent,  and  discordant  sects,  each  differing  from  all 


RESULTS    OF    THE    PROTESTANT    THEORY.  469 

the  others,  as  well  as  from  Protestants,  and  never  even  claiming 
any  affinity  with  each  other.  This  would  compose  the  chain  of 
Christian  succession  of  many  dissimilar  links,  some  deformed  in 
some  respects,  and  some  in  others.  But  not  only  would  the 
links  be  so  deformed,  and  yet  so  dissimilar  even  in  deformity, 
but  the  chain  itself  would  be  exceedingly  small  and  diminutive. 
Having  rejected  the  great  sects  of  the  Manicheans,  Arians,  and 
others,  containing  almost  the  entire  mass  of  dissenters  from  the 
Church  of  Rome,  this  theory  reduced  the  true  visible  Church 
to  a  few  scattered  fragments  of  different  sects,  dispersed  up  and 
down  the  course  of  centuries,  confined  to  a  very  small  portion 
of  the  earth  at  a  time,  and  containing  scarcely  any  members, 
with  a  large  mass  of  error.  The  members  of  the  alleged  true 
Church  were  exceedingly  few,  while  their  errors  were  grievous, 
many,  and  discordant. 

This  theory  made  Christianity  a  practical  failure — a  system 
of  splendid  promises  and  of  meagre  results — the  Church  a  "  city 
of  magnificent  distances "  and  few  inhabitants.  The  Church, 
the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth,  according  to  this  theory, 
had  held  and  taught  the  most  discordant  and  fatal  errors  ;  and 
this  Church  universal  was  confined  to  one  corner  of  the  world. 
And  not  only  was  the  Church  a  failure  at  particular  periods,  but 
this  theory  made  it  a  failure  almost  throughout  its  entire  course. 
The  Church  of  Rome  had  held  in  her  communion,  throughout 
her  entire  history,  the  great  and  overwhelming  majority  of  all 
professed  Christians ;  but  she  was  not  the  true  Church.  Nor 
was  the  true  Church  found  in  the  great  sects  that  separated 
from  the  Church  of  Rome.  She  was  only  found  in  the  most 
diminutive  and  obscure  sects,  each  differing  from  all  the  others, 
and,  as  Calvin  said,  "  not  seen  fully."  The  kingdom  of  Christ 
had  dwindled  so  as  scarcely  to  be  seen.  It  was  not  quite,  but 
almost,  invisible. 

If  the  visible  Church  came  from  the  hands  of  the  apostles 
united,  and  with  a  regular  ministry ;  and  if,  according  to  the 
theory  of  the  Reformers,  all  ministers  must  have  a  vocation, 
either  ordinary  or  extraordinary ;  and  if  the  expulsion  from  the 
visible  Church,  according  to  the  same  theory,  destroyed  or 
withdrew  the  ordinary  vocation  of  the  minister  excommuni- 
cated, and  the  true  Church  could  only  exist  with  authorized 


470         RESULTS  OF  THE  PROTESTANT  THEORY. 

preaching  and  the  right  administration  of  the  sacraments,  as 
they  admitted,  how  did  these  sects  get  their  authority  to  be  the 
true  Church  ?  They  claimed  no  extraordinary  authority,  for 
they  did  not  claim  that  any  miracles  attested  it.  If,  then,  they 
had  any  authority,  it  must  have  been  ordinary.  But  they  were 
mere  laymen,  claimed  no  ordinary  vocation,  and  therefore  de- 
nied its  existence.  Their  common  principle,  making  the  valid- 
ity of  the  sacraments  dependent  upon  the  personal  virtue  of  the 
administrator,  rendered  every  kind  of  vocation  unnecessary. 
How,  then,  could  the  Reformers  claim  these  sects,  or  any  one 
of  them,  to  be  the  true  Church,  according  to  their  theory  ? 

But  these  sects  were  not  united  to  each  other  either  in  the  suc- 
cession of  ministers  or  doctrine.  Nor  did  these  sects,  or  anyone 
or  more  of  them,  have  any  just  claim  to  have  succeeded  others 
in  succession  of  doctrine  or  ministers,  except  the  Albigenses, 
who  could  rightfully  claim  as  their  ancestors  the  Manicheans. 

§10.  Mr.  Campbell's  theory  of  Protestant  succession. 

In  his  debate  with  Bishop  Purcell,  the  first  proposition  of 
Mr.  Campbell  was  this  : 

"  1.  That  the  Roman  Catholic  institution,  sometimes  called 
the  Holy,  Apostolic,  Catholic  Church,  is  not  now,  nor  was  she 
ever,  catholic,  apostolic,  or  holy ;  but  is  a  sect,  in  the  fair  import 
of  that  word,  older  than  any  other  sect  now  existing,  not  the 
'  Mother  and  Mistress  of  all  churches,'  but  an  apostasy  from  the 
only  true,  holy,  apostolic  Church  of  Christ." 

In  his  argument  to  sustain  this  proposition,  Mr.  C.  fixed 
upon  the  day  when  the  Church  of  Rome  became  a  sect,  and 
separated  from  the  true  Church.  He  says  : 

"  We  have  not  time  for  this,  as  we  are  now,  before  we  sit 
down,  to  give  you  the  day  and  date  of  the  separation  of  the 
Roman  Church  from  the  Greek  Church,  which  must  be  regarded 
as  the  day  of  her  separate  existence,  when  she  became  what  she 
now  is,  a  schism,  a  sect." 

"  The  Catholic  body  was  not  yet  divided  into  two  great 
masses." 

Mr.  Campbell  here  speaks  of  the  period  of  the  contests  be- 
tween Pope  Nicholas,  in  the  ninth  century,  and  Photius,  Patri- 
arch of  Constantinople.  He  then  goes  on  to  quote  from  Du 


RESULTS   OF   THE    PROTESTANT   THEORY.  471 

Pin,  to  show  that  Pope  Leo  IX.,  through  his  legates,  excommu- 
nicated Michael  Cerularius,  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  by  a 
bull,  published  in  the  church  of  St.  Sophia,  on  the  16th  of  July, 
1054.  Mr.  C.  then  says:  "Tf,  then,  there  be  any  truth  in  his- 
tory, from  that  day  the  present  sect  of  the  Church  of  Rome  be- 
gan its  existence."  In  his  reply,  Bishop  Purcell  said :  "  The 
gentleman  told  us  that  he  would  put  his  finger  upon  the  precise 
day  and  date,  as  recorded  in  history,  when  the  Roman  Church 
separated  from  the  holy  and  ancient  apostolic  Church,  but  he 
has  not  kept  his  word.  I  warrant  that  that  pledge  will  never 
be  redeemed."  (Mr.  Campbell  here  explained  that  he  had  fixed 
it  at  the  16th  of  July,  1054.)  (Debate  38,  39,  40,  41.) 

This  was  certainly  very  explicit,  and  did  avoid  the  objection 
so  often  made,  that  no  date  had  been  fixed  upon  when  the  Ro- 
man separated  from  the  alleged  true  Church.  But  in  avoiding 
one  difficulty,  Mr.  C.  very  evidently  ran  upon  others.  Several 
questions  necessarily  arise  from  this  position  : 

1.  If  the  Church  before  the  separation  was  the  Catholic 
Church,  as  admitted,  then,  which  was  the  true  Church  after  the 
separation,  the  Greek  or  Roman  ? 

2.  If  the  Church  before  the  separation  was  not  the  true 
Church,  then  how  did  the  Church  of  Rome  become  a  schism,  a 
sect,  for  the  first  time  in  July,  1054  ? 

3.  If  the  Church,  when  composed  of  the  Greek  and  Roman 
churches  united,  was  not  the  true  Church,  where  was  she  ? 

In  answer  to  the  new  difficulties  involved  in  this  position, 
Mr.  Campbell  says : 

u  The  question  was  asked  me  yesterday  evening,  '  Where 
was  the  true  Church  before  the  time  of  the  Greek  schism  ? '  I 
observed,  this  morning,  that  my  having  shown  the  Greek 
Church  to  be  the  senior,  as  the  original  of  the  Roman,  did  not 
necessarily  involve  the  idea,  that  the  Greek  Church  was,  at  the 
time  of  the  separation,  the  true  Catholic  Church."  (Page  65.) 

But  I  must  confess  that  I  could  not  perceive  how  this  an- 
swer avoided  the  difficulty.  It  is  true  that  Mr.  C.'s  position, 
that  the  Greek  was  the  senior  of  the  Roman  Church,  did  not, 
of  itself,  prove  that  the  Greek  was  the  true  Church  ;  but  taken 
in  connection  with  his  first  proposition,  it  did  prove  one  of  three 
things  :  1 .  That  the  Greek  was  the  true  Church  before  the 


472  RESULTS    OF   THE    PROTESTANT   THEORY. 

separation ;  or,  2,  that  Mr.  C.  contradicted  his  first  proposition 
wherein  he  assumed  that  the  Roman  Church  is  a  sect  "  older  than 
any  other  sect  now  existing ; "  or,  3,  that  the  Greek  Church 
does  not  now  exist.  Mr.  C.  had  evidently  involved  himself  in 
"  perplexities,''  as  the  Minister  Jurieu  has  it. 

Before  the  separation,  there  was  no  distinction  between  the 
Greek  and  Roman  churches,  except  as  parts  of  one  united  whole. 
Which  of  these  two  parts  was  first  established,  could  be  of  no 
moment  as  to  jurisdiction,  when  both  were  united.  If  they 
were  both  parts  of  one  united  Church,  as  Mr.  C.  admitted, 
then  this  Church  must  have  been  the  true  Church  before  the 
separation,  or  Mr.  C.  had  failed  to  do  what  he  promised,  and 
assumed  that  he  had  done,  namely:  to  show  when  the  Church 
of  Rome  separated  from  the  true  Church.  If  this  united  Church, 
before  the  separation,  was  not  the  true  Church,  then  sJie  was 
but  a  sect  and  a  schism,  and  Mr.  C.  ought  to  have  gone  further 
back  than  the  year  1054,  to  fix  the  date.  If,  on  the  contrary, 
this  united  Church  was  the  true  Church  up  to  the  separation  in 
1054,  then  one  party  or  the  other  must  have  continued  the 
true  Church  afterwards,  unless  we  assume  that  the  separation 
destroyed  both.  And  if  the  separation  destroyed  both,  what 
then  became  of  the  true  Church  ?  And  what  became  of  the 
promises  of  Christ  ?  Mr.  C.  had  fixed  the  date  of  the  Papacy. 
"  Thus  in  the  year  606,"  he  says,  "  two  years  after  the  death  of 
the  saint,  the  first  Pope  was  placed  in  the  chair  of  the  Galilean 
fisherman,  if  indeed  Peter  had  ever  sat  in  a  chair  at  Rome." 
(Debate  30.) 

From  that  year  up  to  the  Greek  Schism  in  1054,  Mr.  C.  ad- 
mitted that  the  churches  of  the  West  and  East  were  united 
under  the  Pope  of  Rome.  If  this  Church,  thus  united  with  the 
Pope,  was  not  the  true  Church,  it  was  clear  that  Mr.  C.'s  date 
of  1054  amounted  to  no  more  than  this:  it  showed  when  a  sect 
or  schism  had  divided  into  two  sects  or  schisms  ;  and  it  yet  re- 
mained to  show  where  was  the  true  Church,  and  what  was  the 
origin  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  Mr.  C.  had  claimed  to  have 
done  what  yet  remained  to  be  done.  And  it  was  also  clear, 
that  Mr.  C.'s  position,  that  the  "  Catholic  body  was  not  yet 
divided  into  two  great  masses  "  in  the  ninth  century,  was  incon- 
sistent with  the  supposition  that  the  Church,  before  the  separa- 


RESULTS  OF  THE  PROTESTANT  THEORY.        473 

lion,  was  not  the  true  Church.  Mr.  C.  expressly  admits  the 
truths  of  the  Apostles'  Creed,  while  he  does  not  concede  that  it 
was  composed  by  them,  and  says  :  "  All  the  Protestant  world 
believes  this  4  apostles'  creed,'  as  it  is  called,  and  are  as  uniform 
in  this  faith  as  the  Mother  Church  herself."  (Debate  77.) 
When,  therefore,  Mr.  C.  said  the  "  Catholic  body  was  not  yet 
divided,"  I  understand  him  to  mean  that  the  Catholic  Church 
mentioned  in  the  Creed,  "  I  believe  in  the  Catholic  Church," 
was  the  Catholic  body  to  which  he  alluded,  and  that  he  intended 
to  maintain  the  position,  that  the  Church  in  communion  with 
the  Pope,  before  the  Greek  Schism,  was  the  Church. 

But  the  position  admitting  the  Church,  before  the  Greek 
Schism,  to  have  been  the  Catholic  Church,  involved  too  many 
consequences.  The  Catholic  doctrines  held  at  the  present  day, 
were  held  in  the  Church  at  that  day.  Hence  Mr.  C.,  as  I  must 
think,  abandoned  that  position,  and  sought  the  true  Church  else- 
where. All  that  he  had  before  said  in  reference  to  that  position, 
seemed  to  me  set  aside  by  other  grounds  taken  afterwards. 

On  page  65  he  continues :  "  We  can,  however,  show  that, 
from  the  earliest  times,  there  has  existed  a  people  whom  no 
man  can  remember,  [number  ?]  that  have  earnestly  and  consist- 
ently contended  for  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints.  If 
he  requires  me  to  put  my  finger  on  the  page  of  history  on 
which  is  described  the  commencement  of  the  degeneracy  of  the 
Roman  diocese  from  the  true  faith,  I  will  turn  back  to  about 
the  year  of  our  Lord  250.  Then  the  controversy  between  Cor- 
nelius and  Novatian,  about  the  bishopric  of  Rome,  embraced 
the  points  at  issue,  which  separated  the  true  Church  from  that 
which  was  grievously  contaminated  with  error  and  immorality. 
It  was,  indeed,  a  controversy  about  the  purity  of  communion 
and  discipline,  rather  than  about  articles  of  doctrine."  "  I  hold 
in  my  hand,"  he  continues,  "  one  of  the  latest  and  best  historians 
— Waddington.  *  *  The  account  he  gives  of  these  reformers 
is  sustained  by  Jones,  and  other  ecclesiastical  historians.  I 
prefer  Waddington  for  his  brevity  and  perspicuity.  He  says : 

" '  We  may  conclude  with  some  notice  of  the  sect  of  the 
Novatians,  who  were  stigmatized  at  the  time  both  as  schis- 
matics and  heretics,  but  who  may  perhaps  be  more  properly 
considered  as  the  earliest  body  of  ecclesiastical  reformers.  They 


474  RESULTS    OF   THE   PROTESTANT   THEORY. 

arose  at  Rome  about  the  year  250  A.  D.,  and  subsisted,  until  the 
fifth  century,  throughout  every  part  of  Christendom.  Nova- 
tian,  a  proselyte  of  Rome,  was  a  man  of  great  talents  and  learn- 
ing, and  of  a  character  so  austere  that  he  was  unwilling,  under 
any  circumstances  of  contrition,  to  readmit  those  who  had  once 
separated  from  the  communion  of  the  Church.  And  this  sever- 
ity he  would  have  extended  not  only  to  those  who  had  fallen  by 
deliberate  transgression,  but  even  to  such  as  had  made  a  forced 
compromise  of  their  faith  under  the  terrors  of  persecution.  He 
considered  the  Christian  Church  as  a  society,  where  virtue  and 
innocence  reigned  universally,  and  refused  any  longer  to  ac- 
knowledge as  members  of  it  those  who  had  once  degenerated 
into  unrighteousness.  This  endeavor  to  revive  the  spotless  pu- 
rity of  the  primitive  faith,  was  found  inconsistent  with  the  cor- 
ruptions even  of  that  early  age  ;  it  was  regarded  with  suspicion 
by  the  leading  prelates,  as  a  vain  and  visionary  scheme ;  and 
those  rigid  principles,  which  had  characterized  and  sanctified 
the  Church  in  the  first  century,  were  abandoned  to  the  profes- 
sion of  schismatic  sectaries  in  the  third.' 

"  This  sounds  a  little  like  Protestantism."  Truly  it  seems 
so.  But  what  is  gained  by  the  paternity  ?  If  Protestantism 
and  ancient  heresy  be  alike,  is  that  any  advantage  to  the  for- 
mer ?  But  I  confess  I  could  not  see  how  Mr.  C.  had  improved 
his  case.  He  proposed  to  show  "  the  commencement  of  the 
degeneracy  of  the  Roman  diocese  from  the  true  faith,"  and  then 
speaks  of  the  contest  which  "  embraced  the  points  at  issue  which 
separated  the  true  Church  from  that  which  was  grievously  con- 
taminated with  error  and  immorality."  After  making  these 
promises  regarding  faith  and  the  true  Church,  which  he  takes 
to  be  the  Novatians,  he  suddenly  lowers  his  standard,  and  tells 
us,  "  it  was  indeed  a  controversy  about  the  purity  of  communion 
and  discipline,  rather  than  about  articles  of  doctrine."  Mr.  C. 
also  says :  "  I  have  here  before  me,  Eusebius,  the  oldest  of 
ecclesiastical  historians,  who  informs  us  that  Novatus  and  his 
party  were  called  Cathari  or  Puritans.  And,  although  he 
appears  greatly  incensed  against  Novatus  and  his  party,  he  can 
record  no  evil  against  them,  except  their  '  uncharitableness '  in 
refusing  to  commune  with  those  of  immoral  and  doubtful  char- 
acter." (Debate  66.) 


RESULTS    OF   THE   PROTESTANT   THKORY.  475 

The  only  ground,  then,  of  separation,  as  insisted  upon  by 
Mr.  C.  in  his  reference  to  Eusebius,  is  the  sole  one  given  by 
Waddington,  namely:  "He  (Novatian)  was  unwilling,  under 
any  circumstances  of  contrition,  to  readmit  those  once  separated 
from  the  communion  of  the  Church  ; "  even  in  cases  where  they 
"  had  made  a  forced  compromise  of  their  faith  under  the  terrors 
of  persecution." 

Was  Novatian  right?  Was  his  doctrine  true?  Who  is 
now  prepared  to  sustain  the  same  ground  ?  And  when  Mr. 
Waddington  says,  so  doubtingly,  that  the  Novatians  "may, 
perhaps,  be  more  properly  considered  as  the  earliest  body  of 
ecclesiastical  reformers,"  does  he  mean  to  take  the  clear  and 
distinct  position  that  they  were  right  in  the  only  ground  alleged 
by  them,  and  given  by  him  as  the  cause  of  separation  ?  And 
when  he  speaks  of  "  this  attempt  to  revive  the  spotless  moral 
purity  of  the  primitive  faith,"  does  he  mean  to  say  that  the 
faith  of  the  primitive  Church  was  similar  to  that  of  Novatian 
in  this  respect  ?  And  when  he  speaks  of  "  those  rigid  princi- 
ples" of  the  Church  of  the  first  century,  does  he  mean  to  say 
that  a  person  "  once  separated  "  from  the  Church  at  that  early 
day,  would  not  have  been  readmitted  "  under  any  circumstan- 
ces of  contrition  "  ?  And  when  he  speaks  of  "  the  corruptions 
even  of  that  early  age,"  does  he  mean  by  this  the  doctrine  and 
practice  condemned  by  Novatian  ?  namely :  readmitting  into 
the  Church,  after  due  repentance,  those  who  had  fallen.  And 
was  this  merciful  doctrine  and  practice,  heresy  and  corruption  ? 
And  if  Mr.  Waddington  did  not  intend  to  indorse  the  only 
ground  given  by  him  as  the  one  taken  by  Novatian,  then  what 
did  he  mean  ?  Did  he  mean  to  condemn  the  treason,  and  yet 
praise  the  traitor  f  Did  he  mean  to  say  to  Novatian  in  sub- 
stance :  "  Sir,  you  are  wrong  in  the  only  ground  assumed  by 
you,  and  yet  it  is  the  true  faith  of  the  primitive  Church  "  ?  In 
a  word,  did  he  mean  to  condemn  the  principles  of  Novatian, 
and,  at  the  same  time,  hold  him  to  be  a  true  reformer  f  Or 
was  the  truth  this,  and  this  only :  that  the  learned  historian 
could  not  sanction  the  ground  taken  by  Novatian  ;  and  yet  such 
was  the  inexorable  necessity  to  find  reformers,  "  even  at  thai 
early  age,"  that  he  must  needs  hold  the  Novatians  such,  when 
they  were  unequivocally  in  the  wrong  ?  And  was  he  compelled, 


4:76         RESULTS  OF  THE  PROTESTANT  THEORY. 

as  a  historian,  to  give  the  matter  of  fact  truly,  and  yet,  as  a 
Protestant,  to  give  his  opinion,  indorsing  admitted  error  ?  Or 
did  he  mean  to  hold  every  attempt  at  reformation,  whether 
right  or  wrong,  as  still  commendable  ?  Or  did  he  mean  to  take 
the  ground,  that  when  there  are  alleged  errors  in  a  church, 
that  he  who  assumes  to  reform  her,  but  who,  in  fact,  only  adds 
other  admitted  errors  to  those  already  existing,  is  still  entitled 
to  the  appellation  of  a  reformer  ? 

It  is  true,  the  historian,  in  the  beginning  of  the  extract, 
speaks  doubtingly,  as  he  says  "perhaps  "  the  Novatians  may  be 
properly  called  reformers ;  but  in  the  close  he  says  expressly, 
that  "  those  rigid  principles  which  had  characterized  and  sanc- 
tified the  Church  in  the  first  century,  were  abandoned  to  the 
profession  of  schismatic  sectaries  in  the  third."  The  principles 
of  the  Church  of  the  first  century  were  abandoned  to  the  Nova- 
tians  !  Then  was  not  Novatian  right,  according  to  this  explicit 
statement  ? 

If  it  be  a  doctrine  or  principle  of  the  first  century,  then  it 
ought  to  be  sustained.  But  I  never  could  find  any  satisfactory 
evidence  that  such  was  the  doctrine  of  Christ.  When  the 
chosen  all  became  offended  and  fled,  and  this  after  being  spe- 
cially warned  by  Christ,  and  after  having  made  the  most  solemn 
pledges  of  fidelity ;  and  when  Peter  had  denied  his  Master,  in 
His  immediate  presence,  and  under  His  own  eye,  and  affirmed 
his  denial  with  an  oath,  they  were  not  so  treated  by  our  Lord. 
Peter  went  out  and  wept  bitterly,  and  was  restored.  The  in- 
cestuous Corinthian  was  not  so  dealt  with  by  St.  Paul.  And  in 
the  letter  of  the  churches  of  Lyons  and  Yienne,  giving  an  ic- 
count  of  the  martyrdom  of  many  Christians  at  these  places,  in 
the  second  century,  as  recorded  by  Eusebius,  and  published  in 
the  first  volume  of  the  Oxford  Tracts,  it  is  stated,  that  many 
Christians,  under  the  terrors  and  pains  of  torture,  at  first  denied 
the  faith ;  but  they  subsequently  repented,  and  died  glorious 
martyrs  for  the  faith.  "  But,"  they  say,  "  the  mean  time  was 
not  fruitless  to  them,  but  through  their  patience  the  infinite 
mercy  of  Christ  appeared.  For  the  dead  members  were  en- 
livened through  the  living,  and  the  martyrs  showed  favor  to 
those  who  were  not  martyrs,  and  there  was  great  joy  to  the 
Virgin  Mother,  the  Church,  in  receiving  again,  living,  whom 


RESULTS    OF    THE    PROTESTANT    THEORY.  477 

she  had  cast  away  as  dead  and  abortive.  For  by  these  good 
men,  the  greater  number  of  those  who  had  denied  Christ  were 
renewed,  and  reconceived  and  rekindled,  and  learned  to  con- 
fess, and  now,  living  and  full  of  nerve,  were  brought  before  the 
tribunal."  *  *  *  «  gut  Christ  was  greatly  glorified  in  those 
wh.j  had  denied  before,  but  then  confessed,  contrary  to  the  ex- 
pectation of  the  heathen.  For  these  were  even  separately  ex- 
amined, as  on  the  idea  that  they  were  to  be  dismissed ;  but, 
confessing,  were  added  to  the  number  of  the  martyrs." 

Now  had  Novatian  been  right  in  his  "  uncharitableness," 
Christ  would  not  have  been  glorified,  and  the  Church  re- 
joiced by  the  return  of  these  stray  sheep,  who  so  willingly  and 
gloriously,  like  Old  Peter,  at  last  laid  down  their  lives  for  the 
faith.  One  error  of  poor,  weak  human  nature,  was  enough,  with 
this  "  austere  man,"  to  exclude  from  the  Church  forever.  And 
we  of  this  distant  day,  who  have  never  shed  one  drop  of  blood 
for  the  faith,  like  raw  recruits,  who  never  smelt  "  villanous  salt- 
petre," or  witnessed  the  battle's  "  magnificently  stern  array,"  are 
over-confident  that  none  of  us  would  ever  flinch,  should  the  in- 
vincible trial  come.  But  like  young  eaglets,  whose  newly-fledged 
pinions  have  only  borne  them  in  short  gyrations  around  the 
parent  eyry,  and  which  fix  their  confident  gaze  upon  the  sun, 
and  complacently  conclude  that  they  will  soon  be  able  to  soar 
to  that  luminary ;  so  we,  at  distance  safe  from  harm,  may  con- 
sole ourselves  with  the  self-complimentary  reflection,  that  had 
we  lived  in  the  day  of  trial,  we  should  never  have  fallen. 

I  supposed  when  Mr.  C.  asserted  that  the  Novatians  were 
the  true  Church,  and  "  earnestly  and  consistently  contended  for 
the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints,"  and  had,  as  he  alleged, 
separated  from  that  Church  "  which  was  then  grievously  con- 
taminated with  error  and  immorality,"  that  he  was  surely  pre- 
pared to  sustain  the  ground  assumed  by  Novatian,  as  the  cause 
of  the  separation.  I  was,  however,  mistaken,  for  Mr.  C.  after- 
wards says :  "  They  (the  Novatians)  had  one  fault,  which  we 
both  allow — they  were  too  severe  in  one  branch  of  discipline — 
they  could  never  receive  those  who  had  grievously  fallen — no 
repentance  would  obtam  re-admission,  if  the  penitent  had  fla- 
grantly sinned,"  (Debate  75.) 

In  this  language  Mr.  C.  puts  in  conditions  not  mentioned  by 


4:78  RESULTS    OF   THE   PROTESTANT   THEORY. 

Waddington,  but  contrary  to  them — "  very  flagrantly  sinned" — 
"  grievously  fallen."  Waddington  says  in  no  case  were  they  re- 
admitted, even  when  they  had  compromised  their  faith  under 
the  terrors  of  persecution.  And  I  could  not  but  observe  how 
Mr.  C.  had  receded  from  his  first  position.  He  first  assumes  to 
show  "  a  people  "  who  "  have  earnestly  and  consistently  contend- 
ed for  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints  " — he  next  spoke 
of  degeneracy  from  the  "  true  faith  "  in  A.  D.  250 — then  of  the 
separation  of  the  "  true  "  from  the  "  grievously  contaminated  " 
Church — then  he  makes  the  separation  take  place  only  upon  the 
grounds  of  "  purity  of  communion  and  discipline,"  and  not  faith 
— then  he  disapproves  of  the  very  ground  upon  which  this  "  true 
church  "  did  separate  from  the  "  grievously  contaminated  " — 
and,  finally,  winds  up  by  saying :  "  They  had  other  objections  be- 
sides this  against  the  opposing  party ;  but  this  was  sufficient  for 
a  division."  (Debate  76.) 

But  what  those  other  grounds  were,  neither  Mr.  C.  nor  Wad- 
dington informed  us.  And  Mr.  C.  had  taken  good  care  to  pre- 
clude himself  from  any  such  a  retreat ;  for  he  said  in  the  begin- 
ning that  the  "  controversy  "  which  "  separated  the  true  church 
from  that  which  was  grievously  contaminated,"  "  was  about  the 
purity  of  communion  and  discipline,  rather  than  about  articles 
of  doctrine."  Whatever  points  were  involved  regarded  "  purity 
of  communion  and  discipline,"  and  not  doctrine,  as  Mr.  C.  had 
it.  And  when  Waddington  assumes  to  give  the  cause  of  the 
separation,  he  gives  only  one.  And  Mr.  C.,  when  praising  No- 
vatian  and  his  party,  says  Eusebius  could  "record  no  evil  against 
them,  except  their  '  uncharitableness.' "  Now,  as  Mr.  C.  says, 
Eusebius  "  appears  greatly  incensed  against  them,"  and,  of 
course,  agreed  with  the  opposite  party  in  their  views ;  had  there 
been  other  grounds  alleged  as  existing,  surely  Eusebius  could 
have  recorded  them. 

That  there  were  other  grounds,  in  the  opinion  of  Mr.  C., 
there  can  be  no  doubt ;  but  Novatian  did  not  think  so.  And 
if  he  did  think  so,  Mr.  C.  places  him  in  a  very  awkward  posi- 
tion ;  for  while  there  were  several  causes  alleged  by  Mr.  C.  to 
have  existed,  he  makes  Novatian  so  perverse  as  to  discard  all 
those  that  were  true,  and  rely  solely  upon  that  one  which  was 
false,  and  which  Mr.  C.  himself  is  compelled  to  condemn  at  last, 


RESULTS    OF   THE    PROTESTANT   THEORY.  479 

Whatever  other  causes  might  possibly  have  existed,  Novatian 
thought  so  little  of  them  that  they  were  not  even  assumed  as  a 
part  of  the  grounds  of  separation.  True,  Cornelius,  on  his  part, 
urged  against  Novatian  himself,  certain  personal  faults,  independ- 
ent of  his  heresy  ;  but  these  did  not  constitute  the  cause  which 
Novatian  assigned  as  the  ground  of  separation. 

Now  I  could  not  see  in  what  possible  respect  Novatian  had 
reformed  the  Church.  After  all  that  had  been  so  confidently 
said, 

"  The  whole  amount  of  this  stupendous  fame  " 

was  this,  and  this  only :  Novatian  took  with  him  all  the  doctrines 
of  the  other  party,  as  Mr.  C.  calls  the  Church,  except  that  one 
which  he  condemned,  and  in  this  Novatian  was  confessedly  in 
the  wrong.  So  far,  then,  from  improving,  he  had  only  added 
error.  He  had,  upon  a  false  ground,  separated  from  the  Church, 
set  up  for  himself,  excommunicated  those  who  did  not  agree 
with  him  in  this  false  ground,  and  assumed  a  system  of  severity, 
extreme,  unscriptural,  and  cruel.  But  to  my  mind  this  case,  as 
well  as  that  of  the  Vaudois,  Manichcans,  and  others,  proved  the 
truth  of  the  assertion,  that  ancient  heresy  generally  based  its 
pretensions  upon  the  claim  of  extreme  virtue.  Some  members  of 
the  Church  did  not  come  up  to  their  standard  of  personal  piety, 
and  they,  to  improve  individual  members  in  virtue,  assumed 
to  reform  the  entire  Church  in  matters  of  faith.  But  their  zeal 
was  not  according  to  knowledge. 

§  11.  Mr.  Campbell* s  theory  continued. 

"  These  Puritans,  or  reformers,"  Mr.  C.  continues,  "  spread 
all  over  the  world,  and  continued  to  oppose  the  pretensions  of 
those  who,  from  being  the  major  party,  claimed  to  be  the  Cath- 
olic or  only  church.  They  continued  under  the  name  of  Nova- 
tians  for  more  than  two  centuries  ;  but  finally  were  merged  in 
the  Donatists,  who,  indeed,  are  the  same  people  under  another 
name.  These  Donatists  were  a  very  large  and  prosperous  com- 
munity. We  read  of  279  Donatist  bishops  in  one  African  coun- 
cil. Of  these  Donatists  the  same  historian  deposes  : 

i4 '  The  Donatists  have  never  been  charged,  with  the  slightest 
show  of  truth,  with  any  error  of  doctrine,  or  any  defect  in  church 


480  RESULTS    OF   THE   PROTESTANT   THEORY. 

government  or  discipline,  or  any  depravity  of  moral  practice  : 
they  agreed  in  every  respect  with  their  adversaries,  except  one 
— they  did  not  acknowledge  as  legitimate  the  ministry  of  the 
African  church,  but  considered  their  own  body  to  be  the  true, 
uncorrupted,  universal  church. 

" '  It  is  quite  clear  that  they  pushed  their  schism  to  very 
great  extremities,  even  to  that  of  rejecting  the  communion  of 
all  who  were  in  communion  with  the  church  which  they  called 
false ;  but  this  was  the  extent  of  their  spiritual  offence,  even 
from  the  assertion  of  their  enemies.'  "  (Wad.  His.,  p.  154.) 

"  The  Donatists,  in  some  two  centuries,  were  amalgamated 
with  the  Paulicians.  They,  too,  were  called  Puritans.  Jones, 
who  has  been  at  the  greatest  pains  to  give  their  history,  gives 
the  following  account  of  them  : 

"  'About  the  year  660,  a  new  sect  arose  in  the  east,  under  the 
name  of  Paulicians,  which  is  justly  entitled  to  our  attention. 

"  'In  Mananalis,  an  obscure  town  in  the  vicinity  of  Samosata, 
a  person  of  the  name  of  Constantine  entertained  at  his  house  a 
deacon,  who,  having  been  a  prisoner  among  the  Mahometans, 
was  returning  from  Syria,  whither  he  had  been  carried  away 
captive.  From  this  passing  stranger  Constantine  received  the 
precious  gift  of  the  New  Testament  in  its  original  language, 
which,  even  at  this  early  period,  was  concealed  from  the  vulgar — 
that  Peter  Siculus,  to  whom  we  owe  most  of  our  information  on 
the  history  of  the  Paulicians,  tells  us  the  first  scruples  of  a  Cath- 
olic, when  he  was  advised  to  read  the  Bible  was,  '  it  is  not  law- 
ful for  us  profane  persons  to  read  these  sacred  writings,  but  for 
the  priests  only.'  Indeed,  the  gross  ignorance  that  pervaded 
Europe  at  this  time,  rendered  the  generality  of  the  people  inca- 
pable of  reading  that  or  any  other  book ;  but  even  those  of  the 
laity  who  could  read  were  dissuaded  by  their  religious  guides 
from  meddling  with  the  Bible.  Constantine,  however,  made 
the  best  use  of  the  deacon's  present — he  studied  the  New  Tes- 
tament with  unwearied  assiduity — and  more  particularly  the 
writings  of  the  apostle  Paul,  from  which  he  at  length  endeavored 
to  deduce  a  system  of  doctrine  and  worship.  '  He  investigated 
the  creed  of  primitive  Christianity,' *says  Gibbon,  'and  whatever 
might  be  the  success,  a  Protestant  reader  will  applaud  the  spirit 
of  inquiry.'  The  knowledge  to  which  Constantine  himself  was, 


RESULTS  OF  THE  PROTESTANT  THEORY.        481 

under  the  divine  blessing,  enabled  to  attain,  he  gladly  communi- 
cated  to  others  around  him,  and  a  Christian  church  was  collect- 
ed. In  a  little  time  several  individuals  arose  among  them,  qual- 
ified for  the  work  of  the  ministry,  and  several  other  churches 
were  collected  throughout  Armenia  and  Cappadocia.  It  ap- 
pears, from  the  whole  of  their  history,  to  have  been  a  leading 
object  with  Constantine  and  his  brethren  to  restore,  as  far  as 
possible,  the  profession  of  Christianity  to  all  its  primitive  sim- 
plicity." (Jones'  Hist.  Christian  Ch.,  p.  239.) 

Again : 

"  4  The  Paulician  teachers,'  says  Gibbon,  *  were  distinguished 
only  by  their  Scriptural  names,  by  the  modest  title  of  their  fel- 
low pilgrims,  by  the  austerity  of  their  lives,  their  zeal  and  knowl- 
edge, and  the  credit  of  some  extraordinary  gift  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  But  they  were  incapable  of  desiring,  or  at  least,  of  ob- 
taining the  wealth  and  honors  of  the  Catholic  prelacy.  Such 
anti-Christian  pride  they  strongly  censured.'  "  (Id.,  p.  240.) 

"  I  might  read  almost  to  the  same  effect  from  Waddington 
and  Du  Pin.  True,  they  are  called  heretics  by  those  who  call 
themselves  Catholics  and  us  heretics;  but  what  does  that 
prove  ? 

"  Until  the  appearance  of  the  Waldenses  [Yaudois]  and  Albi- 
genses,  these  Protestants  continued  to  oppose  the  church  of  na- 
tions in  the  east  and  in  the  west,  until  at  one  time  they  claimed 
the  title  of  Catholic.  We  read  of  hundreds  of  bishops  attending 
the  different  councils  in  which  they  met  to  oppose  the  violent 
assaults  of  their  enemies."  (Debate  67,  68.) 

The  first  point  that  I  considered,  was  the  statement  of  Mr. 
C.,  that  the  Novatians,  after  more  than  two  centuries,  were 
merged  in  the  Donatists. 

The  Donatists  arose  in  Africa,  in  A.  D.  311.  The  election 
of  Cecilian  to  the  episcopal  see  of  Carthage,  upon  the  death  of 
Mensurius,  was  disputed  by  Donatus  and  his  supporters.  In 
313  a  council  held  at  Rome,  before  which  Cecilian  and  Donatus 
both  appeared,  each  accompanied  by  ten  bishops  of  his  party, 
decided  in  favor  of  the  regularity  of  the  ordination  of  Cecilian. 
Again,  in  314,  a  synod  at  Aries  decided  in  the  same  way. 

At  the  time  of  the  separation  from  the  same  church  from 
which  the  Novatians  had,  sixty-one  years  before,  separated,  the 
42 


482  RESULTS    OF    THE    PROTESTANT    THEORY. 

only  ground  alleged  was  this  one  regarding  the  legitimacy  of 
the  ministry  of  Cecilian.  In  every  other  respect,  according  to 
Waddington,  they  agreed  with  their  adversaries.  Whatever 
doctrines  were  held  by  the  Church,  were  held  by  them.  Do- 
natists  arose  in  Africa,  and  were  confined  to  that  continent,  and 
the  Novatians  arose  at  Rome.  If,  then,  the  Novatians  ulti- 
mately joined  the  Donatists,  it  was  only  by  giving  up  all  that 
was  peculiar  to  them,  and  recanting  the  only  ground  upon 
which  they  separated  from  the  Church  originally.  In  joining 
the  Donatists,  they  lost  all  identity  of  organization  and  doctrine. 
They  in  fact  became  members  of  another  and  a  distinct  sect. 
There  was  not  the  slightest  identity  between  these  two  parties, 
except  that  they  both  stood  opposed  to  the  Church,  but  upon 
different  and  antagonistic  grounds.  One  merely  died  out,  and 
the  other  lived  on  a  while  longer.  The  former  members  of  the 
deceased  Church  may  have  joined,  and  become  identified  with, 
another  sect,  holding  the  very  doctrine  which  caused  these  No- 
vatians  to  sever  the  Church  in  250.  It  was  a  surrender,  not 
a  compromise. 

But  I  could  find  no  evidence  of  any  merger  whatever,  inde- 
pendent of  Mr.  C.'s  statement.  The  language  of  Wadding- 
ton  does  not  convey  any  such  idea.  That  the  Novatians  con- 
tinued until  after  the  Donatist  schism,  was  true.  But  this,  of. 
itself,  did  not  prove  any  merger.  And  from  the  fact  that  their 
doctrine  was  different  from  that  of  the  Donatists,  and  that  they 
claimed  to  be  exclusively  the  true  Church,  while  the  Donatists 
did  the  same,  there  could  have  been  no  merger. 

And  I  could  not  see  any  thing  in  the  Donatists,  that  entitled 
them  to  the  claim  of  being  the  true  Church.  They  divided  the 
.  Church  upon  a  question  simply  regarding  the  legitimacy  of  a 
single  bishop.  "  They  pushed  their  schism  to  very  great  ex- 
tremities," says  Waddington.  Was  this  any  merit?  If  the 
Church  was  "grievously  contaminated  with  error,"  as  Mr. 
Campbell  contends,  these  Donatists  did  not  propose  to  remedy 
these  evils.  What,  then,  was  their  peculiar  merit?  Was  it 
simply  dividing  the  Church  ?  Was  the  act  of  simply  protesting 
upon  right  or  wrong  grounds,  still  a  merit  ?  I  could  not  see 
any  merit  in  mere  schism. 

"No  heretic,"  says  Waddington,  p.  154,  "was  as  likely  as 


RESULTS    OF   THE   PROTESTANT   THEORY.  483 

the  Donatist  to  lay  claims  to  the  name  Catholic ;  yet  even  the 
Donatist,  while  he  maintained  that  the  true  spirit  and  purity 
were  alone  perpetuated  in  his  own  communion,  would  scarcely 
have  affirmed  that  that  was  bona  fide  the  universal  church, 
which  did  not  extend  beyond  the  shores  of  Africa,  and  which 
had  not  the  majority  even  there." 

Mr.  Campbell  says :  "  The  Donatists,  in  some  two  centuries, 
were  amalgamated  with  the  Paulicians."  But  I  could  find  no 
evidence  of  this  alleged  fact,  other  than  the  statement  of  Mr.  C. 
And  several  questions  arise  in  regard  to  Mr.  C.'s  merger  and 
amalgamation : 

1.  He  says  the  Novatians  merged  in  the  Donatists.     Wad- 
dington  says  the  Donatists  were  confined  to  Africa.     The  No- 
vatians  arose  at  Rome.     Now  how  did  those  Novatians  out  of 
Africa  merge  in  the  Donatists  ? 

2.  He  says  the  Donatists,  in  some  two  centuries,  amalga- 
mated with  the  Paulicians.     Jones  says  that  the  deacon  left 
the  New  Testament  with  Constantine  in  660,  and  this  was  in 
Armenia  in  the  East.     Then  how  did  the  Donatists,  who  were 
confined  to  Africa,  amalgamate  with  the  Paulicians,  who  were 
never  on  that  continent  ?     And  how  did  this  amalgamation  tak« 
place  before  the  Paulicians  existed  ? 

But  as  respects  the  Paulicians,  Jones,  the  Protestant  histo- 
rian, gives  us  the  circumstances  of  their  origin,  and  his  opinion 
of  the  intention  of  Constantine  to  restore  the  primitive  worship 
of  Christianity- in  all  its  simplicity,  which  is  always  the  object 
avowed  by  all  separatists  of  every  age ;  but  he  does  not,  hi  the 
extract,  give  us  their  peculiar  doctrines — the  tenets  that  distin- 
guished them  from  others.  Jones  himself  speaks  rather  doubt- 
ingly.  True,  he  says  Constantine  "  studied  the  New  Testament 
with  unwearied  assiduity,"  "  from  which  at  length  he  endeavored 
to  deduce  a  system  of 'doctrine  and  worship."  And  the  lan- 
guage of  Gibbon  is  still  more  equivocal :  "  whatever  might  be 
the  success."  All  that  Gibbon  could  say  was  that  the  Protes- 
tant would  "  applaud  the  spirit  of  inquiry."  In  the  extract  from 
Gibbon,  their  peculiar  tenets  are  not  given,  but  he  speaks  of 
their  demeanor  and  practice  of  poverty,  and  their  claim  to 
"  some  extraordinary  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit,"  without  saying 
what  it  was. 


484         RESULTS  OF  THE  PROTESTANT  THEORY. 

But  the  question  arose  in  my  mind,  whether  "  studying  the 
Scripture  with  unwearied  assiduity,"  with  the  intent  to  restore 
primitive  Christianity,  and  arriving  at  the  wrong  conclusion  and 
the  wrong  faith,  could  constitute  the  true  Church.  In  other 
words,  whether  any  faith  was  required  by  the  Christian  law ; 
and  if  so,  whether  it  must  not  be  the  true  faith.  If  mere  sin- 
cerity was  required,  the  law  laying  down  what  was  to  be  be- 
lieved and  done,  must  be  simply  idle.  And  I  must  confess  I 
could  not  understand  what  sort  of  true  Church  it  could  be  with 
a  false  faith. 

And  when  I  examined  to  see  what  the  peculiar  doctrines  of 
this  sect  were,  I  found  them  to  be  Manicheans  in  their  leading 
principles,  as  fully  shown  by  Bossuet  in  his  History,  as  already 
stated.  It  is  true,  as  stated  by  Mr.  C.,  that  they  continued  to 
"  oppose  the  Church  of  nations  in  the  East  and  in  the  West," 
until  the  times  of  the  Waldenses  and  Albigenses.  But  these 
Albigenses  were  also  a  branch  of  the  same  Manichean  root.  In 
addition  to  the  testimony  of  the  historians  quoted  by  Bossuet, 
Waddington  says,  in  speaking  of  the  sects  of  Dauphine  and 
other  errorists  condemned  at  Arras  in  1025  :  "It  is  proper  to 
mention  what  these  opinions  really  were,  which  were  condemned 
at  Arras,  lest  it  should  be  supposed  that  they  were  at  variance 
only  with  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  and  strictly  in  accord- 
ance with  apostolic  truth."  "  It  was  asserted  that  the  Sacra- 
ment of  baptism  was  useless,  and  of  no  efficacy  to  salvation — 
that  the  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper  was  equally  unneces- 
sary. It  appears  that  the  objections  of  the  heretics  on  this 
point  went  beyond  the  mere  denial  of  the  change  of  substance — 
that  the  sacred  orders  of  the  ministry  were  not  of  divine  institu- 
tion— that  penance  was  altogether  inefficacious — that  marriage 
in  general  was  contrary  to  the  evangelical  and  apostolical  laws 
— that  saint  worship  is  to  be  confined  to  the  apostles  and  mar- 
tyrs, &c.,  &c.,  so  mixed  and  various  is  the  substance  of  these 
opinions  to  which  learned  writers  on  this  subject  appeal  with  so 
much  satisfaction."  Again :  "  They  were  all  tainted  more  or 
less  deeply  by  the  poison  of  Manicheism ;  and  since  it  is  our  ob- 
ject to  establish  a  connection  with  the  primitive  church,  we 
shall  scarcely  attain  it  through  those  whose  fundamental  princi- 


RESULTS   OF   THE   PROTESTANT   THEORY.  485 

pie  was  unequivocally  rejected  by  that  church,  as  irrational  ana 
impious."  (P.  554,  555.  Cited  Debate  80.) 

Mosheim,  the  Lutheran  Church  historian,  says:  "Among 
the  sects  that  troubled  the  Latin  church  this  century,  (the  12th,) 
the  principal  place  is  due  to  the  Cathari,  or  Catharists,  whom 
we  have  had  already  occasion  to  mention.  This  numerous  fac- 
tion, leaving  their  first  residence,  which  was  in  Bulgaria,  spread 
themselves  throughout  almost  all  the  European  provinces,  where 
they  occasioned  much  tumult  and  disorder.  Their  religion  re- 
sembled the  doctrine  of  the  Manicheans  and  Gnostics,  on  which 
account  they  commonly  received  the  denomination  of  the  for- 
mer, though  they  differed  in  many  respects  from  the  genuine 
primitive  Manicheans.  They  all  agreed,  indeed,  in  the  follow- 
ing points  of  doctrine,  viz.,  that  matter  was  the  source  of  all 
evil ;  that  the  creator  of  this  world  was  a  being  distinct  from 
the  Supreme  Deity ;  that  Christ  was  neither  clothed  with  a  real 
body,  nor  could  he  be  properly  said  to  have  been  born,  or  to 
have  seen  death ;  that  human  bodies  were  the  production  of 
the  evil  principle,  and  were  extinguished  without  the  prospect 
of  a  new  life.  They  treated  with  the  utmost  contempt  all  the 
books  of  the  Old  Testament,  but  expressed  a  high  degree  of 
veneration  for  the  New."  (Vol.  i.,  p.  328.) 

Speaking  of  the  Waldenses,  Mosheim  says  :  "  They  commit- 
ted the  government  of  the  church  to  bishops,  presbyters,  and 
deacons,  but  they  deemed  it  absolutely  necessary  that  all  these 
orders  should  resemble  exactly  the  apostles  of  the  divine  Sa- 
viour, and  be,  like  them,  illiterate,  &c.,  &c.  The  laity  were  di- 
vided into  two  classes,  one  of  which  contained  the  perfect  and 
the  other  the  imperfect  Christians."  (P.  332.)  Of  the  Pasa- 
ginians,  Mosheim  says :  "  They  circumcised  their  followers,  and 
held  that  the  law  of  Moses,  in  every  thing  but  sacrifice,  was 
obligatory  upon  Christians."  (P.  333.)  The  same  historian 
says  of  the  brethren  of  the  free  spirit,  that  "  they  maintained 
that  the  believer  could  not  sin,  let  his  conduct  be  ever  so  horri- 
Kle  and  atrocious."  (P.  428.)  He  also  says:  "A  sect  of  fanat- 
ics called  Caputiati,  infested  Moravia  and  Burgundy,  the  dio- 
cese of  Auxerre,  and  several  other  parts  of  France,  in  all  which 
places  they  excited  much  disturbance  among  the  people.  They 
declared  publicly  that  their  purpose  was  to  level  all  distinctions, 


486  RESULTS    OF    THE    PROTESTANT   THEORY. 

to  abrogate  magistracy,  to  remove  all  subordination  among 
mankind,  and  to  restore  that  primitive  liberty,  that  natural 
equality,  which  were  the  inestimable  privileges  of  the  first  mor- 
tals." (P.  333.  Cited  Debate  80,  81.) 

That  the  Oathari  mentioned  by  Mosheim  were  the  same 
people  called  Paulicians,  is  certain.  Mr.  C.  says  the  Paulicians 
"  were  called  Puritans,"  which  is  the  English  of  Cathari ;  and 
he  says,  "these  Protestants  (Paulicians)  continued  to  oppose* 
the  church  of  nations  in  the  east  and  in  the  west,  until,"  <fec. 

Such  were  the  doctrines  to  which  Constantine  and  his  follow- 
ers attained  by  the  unwearied  study  of  the  New  Testament, 
and  the  "  divine  blessing,"  as  Jones  has  it.  That  they  were 
called  heretics  by  the  Catholics  is  true.  So  they  are  by  Wad- 
dington  and  Mosheim.  And  conceding  the  truth  of  that  article 
of  the  Apostles'  Creed,  "  I  believe  in  the  Catholic  Church,"  and 
that  the  promises  of  Christ  were  given  to  .this  visible  Church,  I 
could  not  see  any  beauty  or  truth  in  this  chain  of  succession. 
It  was  strangely  and  singularly  irregular,  diminutive,  deformed, 
isolated,  and  broken.  First,  the  ISTovatians  separated  from  the 
Catholic  Church  in  A.  D.  250,  upon  a  specific,  but  false  ground / 
and  although  that  distinctive  characteristic  which  made  them 
Novatians  was  conceded  to  be  wrong,  still  the  true  Church  was 
most  inconsistently  said  to  be  with  them.  Then  came  the  Do- 
natists,  who  separated  upon  another  and  a  mere  local  ground, 
still  retaining  all  the  errors  of  that  "  grievously  contaminated  " 
church  they  left,  and  who,  therefore,  repudiated  the  very  error 
that  constituted  the  Xovatians — and  then  the  true  Church  is 
alleged  to  have  passed  into  the  Donatists,  while  the  only  addi- 
tional merit  which  they  could  claim  over  and  above  that  "griev- 
ously contaminated"  church,  was,  that  "they  pushed  their 
schism  to  very  great  extremities,"  as  Waddington  says.  But 
the  Donatists,  now  the  alleged  true  Church,  were  destined  soon 
to  perish,  and  the  alleged  true  Church  passed  from  the  dead 
body  of  this  sect  into  that  "  new  sect,"  as  Jones  called  the  Pauli- 
cians. But  this  alleged  new  true  Church,  (full  of  Maniche^n 
errors  of  the  grossest  character,)  like  its  predecessors,  was  only 
to  continue  until  other  sects,  the  Albigenses  and  Waldenses, 
arose.  With  them,  as  with  the  others,  this  alleged  true  Church 
was  to  have  another  temporary  "  local  habitation  and  a  name," 


RESULTS    OF    THE    PROTESTANT    THEORY.  487 

until  the  days  of  Luther.  According  to  this  theory,  the  true 
visible  Catholic  Church  had  made  several  transmigrations,  in 
every  case  passing  from  one  perishable  sect  into  another,  each 
one  differing  from  all  its  predecessors;  as  if  the  true,  the  Cath- 
olic Church,  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth,  was  really  in 
pursuit  of  obscurity,  variety,  and  endless  change. 

And  well  might  Waddington  say :  "  So  mixed  and  various 
is  the  substance  of  those  opinions  to  which  learned  writers  on 
this  subject  appeal  with  so  much  satisfaction,"  *  *  *  "  and  since 
it  is  our  object  to  establish  a  connection  with  the  primitive 
church,  we  shall  scarcely  attain  it  through  those  whose  funda- 
mental principle  was  unequivocally  rejected  by  that  church,  as 
irrational  and  impious."  Nor  could  I  see  how  Mr.  Campbell 
could  be  so  fond  of  those  errorists,  who  rejected  baptism  and 
the  Lord's  Supper  as  useless,  when  Mr.  C.  always  held  that  bap- 
tism was  for  the  remission  of  past  sins. 

And  I  confess  I  could  not  possibly  understand  how  the  fol- 
lowing extract,  made  by  Mr.  C.  from  Waddington,  in  imme- 
diate connection  with  the  first  extract  from  that  author  regard- 
ing the  Novatians,  could  help  his  case  any : 

"  From  a  review  of  what  has  been  written  on  this  subject, 
some  truths  may  be  derived  of  considerable  historical  import- 
ance ;  the  following  are  among  them  : 

"1.  In  the  midst  of  perpetual  dissent  and  occasional  contro- 
versy, a  steady  and  distinguishing  line,  both  in  doctrine  and 
practice,  was  maintained  by  the  early  church,  and  its  efforts 
against  those  whom  it  called  heretics  were  zealous  and  perse- 
vering, and  for  the  most  part  consistent.  Its  contests  were 
fought  with  the  c  sword  of  the  spirit,'  with  the  arms  of  reason 
and  eloquence  ;  and  as  they  were  always  unattended  by  personal 
oppression,  so  were  they  most  effectually  successful — successful, 
not  in  establishing  a  nominal  unity,  nor  silencing  the  expression 
of  private  opinion,  but  in  maintaining  the  purity  of  the  faith,  in 
preserving  the  attachment  of  the  gr.eat  majority  of  the  believ- 
ers, and  in  consigning,  either  to  immediate  disrepute,  or  early 
neglect,all  the  unscriptural  doctrines  which  were  successively  ar- 
rayed against  it."  (D.  66.) 

From  this  I  understand  Waddington  to  say,  substantially, 
that  the  early  Church  was  known  by  a  "  steady  and  distinguish- 


4:88  RESULTS    OF    THE    PROTESTANT    THEORY. 

ing  line  of  doctrine  and  practice  " — that  this  early  Church  was 
not  the  Novatians  nor  the  Donatists,  as  Mr.  C.  contended,  for 
Waddington  expressly  held  the  latter  as  not  composing  the 
true  Church,  as  we  have  seen ;  and  while  he  seems  to  speak 
doubtingly  of  the  Novatians  in  the  beginning  of  the  first  ex- 
tract, he  clearly,  in  this,  places  them  among  the  heretics  whose 
doctrines  were  consigned  by  the  Church  to  "  disrepute  or  neg- 
lect," for  he  speaks  of  the  early  Church  as  "  preserving  the  at- 
tachment of  the  great  majority  of  the  believers,"  which  could 
not  be  true  of  the  Novatians,  who  constituted  a  very  small  par- 
ty, nothing  like  so  numerous  as  the  Donatists,  who  themselves 
were  confined  alone  to  Africa,  and  had  not  even  a  majority 
there,  as  Waddington  says.  And  if  the  early  Church  was  thus 
known  by  this  "  steady  and  distinguishing  line,  both  in  doctrine 
and  practice,"  and  was  "  successful  in  maintaining  the  purity 
of  the  faith,"  as  this  Protestant  historian  says,  how  did  those 
aUeged  errors  get  into  the  Church,  of  which  Mr.  Campbell 
speaks  ?  And  how  and  when  did  this  steady  Church,  which 
preserved  the  "purity  of  the  faith,"  lose  "  those  rigid  principles 
that  characterized  and  sanctified  her  before  the  days  of  Nova- 
tian  ?  I  confess  my  inability  to  put  the  positions,  either  of 
Waddington  or  Mr.  Campbell,  together,  and  make  them  con- 
sistent with  themselves.  In  one  place,  this  historian  makes  the 
early  Church  abandon  her  principles  to  others,  and,  in  another, 
he  makes  her  preserve  them ;  and  Mr.  Campbell  quotes  both 
passages  to  show  that  she  did  abandon  them. 

Mr.  Campbell  placed  much  emphasis  upon  the  fact,  that  the 
Donatists  and  the  Greeks  each  claimed  to  be  the  sole  true 
Church.  The  Novatians  also  claimed  the  same  for  themselves. 
Mr.  C.  says :  "  Mark  it.  The  Donatists  considered  their  own 
body  to  be  the  true,  uncorrupted,  universal  church."  (Debate 
67.)  In  reference  to  the  Greeks,  he  says  :  "  The  Greek  church, 
be  it  noted  with  all  distinctness,  did  stand  upon  this  point,  that 
she  was  the  only  true  church  ;  and  that  no  ordinance,  baptism, 
or  the  eucharist,  was  at  all  valid,  unless  administered  by  her  au~ 
thority:'  (Debate  40.) 

The  fact  that  each  of  these  sects  claimed  to  be  the  sole  true 
Church,  as  did  most,  if  not  all,  the  sects  before  the  Reforma- 
tion, as  well  as  did  the  Catholic  Church  from  which  they  sepa» 


RESULTS    OF   THE    PROTESTANT   THEORY.  489 

rated,  went  to  prove  this  point,  as  I  understand  it ;  namely :  that 
by  consent  of  all  parties — heretics,  schismatics,  and  Catholics — 
from  the  first  to  the  sixteenth  century,  the  doctrine  that  there 
was  but  one  sole  true  visible  Church,  in  whose  communion  sal- 
vation must  be  found,  was  universally  believed  and  held  to  be 
true  /  and  that  the  doctrine  that  the  true  visible  Church  could 
be  composed  of  a  conglomeration  of  separate  and  distinct  an- 
tagonistic organizations,  differing  in  faith  and  discipline,  and 
excommunicating  each  other,  is  an  after-thought,  invented  since 
the  Reformation.  And  the  only  possible  other  result  that  I 
could  see  was  this,  that  these  conflicting  claims  would  only 
compel  us  to  choose  between  them,  without,  in  the  slightest 
degree,  weakening  the  claim  of  the  rightful  proprietor.  If 
twenty  men  each  claims  to  be  the  sole  owner  of  an  estate,  by  the 
admission  of  all,  there  is  but  one  exclusive  owner,  while  the 
nineteen  false,  but  adverse  claims,  will  never  defeat  him  in 
whom  the  true  title  is  vested.  A  million  counterfeits  will  never 
disparage  one  dime  of  the  genuine  coin. 

And  when  I  considered  this  most  strange  and  deformed 
chain  of  alleged  succession,  I  could  not  but  wish  to  ask  these 
plain  and  pointed  questions :  "  Is  this  really  the  best  you  can 
do  ?  Is  there  no  possible  chance  for  a  better  showing  ?  If  not, 
had  you  not  better 

*  Go  and '  contend  'your  family  is  young, 
Nor  own  your  fathers  have  heen  fools  so  long '  ? 

W^uld  it  not  be  better  to  concede,  at  once,  that  you  have  no 
ancestors  ?  Why  not  take  a  bold,  neat,  clean  ground  ?  Why 
halt  between  two  false  opinions  ?  Had  you  not  better  take 
that  one  which  is,  at  least,  consistent  with  itself?  " 

§  12.  The  new  ground  of  Mr.  Breckenridge. 

In  reference  to  that  most  important  and  difficult  point,  where 
was  the  true  Church  before  the  Reformation,  if  it  was  not  the 
Church  of  Rome  ?  Mr.  Breckenridge,  in  his  controversy  with 
Bishop  Hughes,  takes  a  new  position.  Bishop  Hughes  had 
made  this  distinct  proposition :  "  Either  the  Protestant  religion 
is  a  religion  differing  from  the  religion  of  Christ,  or  else  the 
religion  of  Christ  was  not  professed  by  any  society  of  Christian* 
43 


490  RE8ULTS    OF    THE    PROTESTANT   THEORY. 

previous  to  the  time  of  Luther.  To  which  of  these  alternatives 
will  you  cling?  One  of  them  is  inevitable."  (Con.  254.) 

In  his  first  answer,  Mr.  B.  claims  the  Waldenses,  the  Greek 
church,  the  ancient  Arminian  church,  the  Jacobites,  Syrians, 
the  Egyptian  and  Abyssinian  Christians  as  Protestant  ancestors, 
and  says :  "  How  plain  it  is,  then,  from  these  testimonies,  that 
the  Protestant  religion  was  professed,  not  only  before  the  daya 
of  Luther,  but  existed  from  the  beginning,  and  descended  for 
centuries,  even  in  your  own  church,  until  she  corrupted  it,  and 
made  it  an  anti-Christian  Papacy."  (P.  278.) 

To  this  very  confident  answer  Bishop  Hughes  replied, 
showing  the  tenets  of  the  Waldenses,  such  as  we  have  seen, 
differing  so  widely  from  Protestants,  and  holding  so  many  of 
the  alleged  errors  of  the  Catholics.  (Con.  288.) 

Mr.  B.,  having  again  called  the  attention  of  the  Bishop  to 
the  Syrian  Christians,  page  405,  the  latter  replied,  on  page  416 : 

"  About  the  year  1500,  the  Portuguese  having  doubled  the 
Cape  of  Good  Hope,  penetrated  into  India,  and,  to  their  amaze- 
ment, those  Christians  of  St.  Thomas  were  found  on  the  coast 
of  Malabar.  This  was  reported  in  Europe,  and  gave  rise  to 
much  speculation ;  but,  unfortunately,  it  was  made  known  that 
their  faith  had  been  corrupted  by  the  errors  of  Protestantism. 
They  were  heretics,  and  the  Reformers,  who  had  just  separated 
from  the  faith  of  the  church,  and  of  the  world,  took  it  into  their 
heads  that,  of  course,  they  were  Protestants.  La  Croze,  a 
Protestant,  wrote  a  treatise  to  maintain  this  supposition,  under 
the  title  of  '  History  of  Christianity  in  India.'  But  Assen^ini 
(Biblioth.  Orient.,  Tom.  4,  c.  7,  §  13)  refuted  La  Croze's  book, 
and  convicted  him,  as  usual  in  such  cases,  of  twelve  or  thirteen 
gross  misrepresentations.  Their  errors  were  condemned  by  the 
Catholic  Archbishop  of  Goa,  but  the  denial  of  the  real  presence 
was  not  among  them.  In  their  Liturgy,  to  which  Mr.  B.  refers, 
are  found  the  following  words :  '  With  hearts  full  of  respect 
and  fear,  let  us  approach  the  Mystery  of  the  precious  body  and 
blood  of  our  Saviour  *  *  *  *  and  now,  O  Lord,  that 
thou  hast  called  me  to  thy  holy  and  pure  altar,  to  offer  unto 
thee  this  living  and  holy  sacrifice,  make  me  worthy  to  receive 
this  gift  with  purity  and  holiness.'  At  the  communion,  the 
Priest  says :  '  O  Lord,  my  God !  I  am  not  worthy,  neither  is  it 


RESULTS   OF   THE    PROTESTANT   THEORY.  4:91 

becoming  that  I  should  partake  of  the  body  and  blood  of  propi- 
tiation, or  even  so  much  as  touch  them.  But  may  thy  word 
sanctify  my  soul,  and  heal  my  body.'  In  thanksgiving,  after 
communion,  he  says :  4  Strengthen  my  hands  which  are  stretched 
out  to  receive  the  holy  one.  *  *  *  *  Repair,  by  a  new 
life,  the  bodies  which  have  just  been  feeding  on  thy  living  body. 
*  *  *  God  has  loaded  us  with  blessings  by  his  living  Son, 
who,  for  our  salvation,  descended  from  the  highest  heavens, 
clothed  himself  with  our  flesh,  has  given  his  own  flesh,  and  mixed 
his  venerable  blood  with  our  blood,  a  Mystery  of  propitiation.' " 
(Renaudot's  Latin  translation.) 

These  extracts  conclusively  proved  that  they  held  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Mass  and  Real  Presence. 

In  reference  to  these  Syriac  Christians,  the  Bishop  further 
observes  on  page  418  :  "  But  besides  that,  they  venerated  the 
crucifix,  made  the  sign  of  the  cross,  fasted  from  food  on  certain 
days,  and  abstained  from  meat  on  others,  celebrated  festivals 
in  honor  of  the  blessed  Virgin,  and  prayed  for  the  dead."  (Le 
Brun,  Tom.  iii.,  Dis.  xi.,  Art.  15.)  "  They  believed  in  the  re- 
mission of  sins  by  the  Priest's  absolution,  held  three  sacraments, 
Baptism,  Holy  Order,  and  the  Eucharist,  and  taught  that  in 
Christ  there  were  two  persons,  the  divine  and  human :  that  the  di- 
vinity dwelt  in  Jesus,  as  in  a  temple."  (P.  417.)  On  page  41 8  the 
Bishop  shows  the  doctrines  of  the  Arminians,  Jacobites,  Egyp- 
tians, and  Abyssinians  to  be  very  different  from  that  of  Protes- 
tants. 

In  reference  to  the  Greek  church  the  Bishop  says :  "  The 
Greeks  believe  in  seven  sacraments,  in  the  real  presence,  in  tran- 
substantiation,  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass,  prayers  for  the  depart- 
ed, and  even  the  invocation  of  saints.  *  *  *  When  the 
patriarch,  Cyril  Lupor,  was  detected  holding  correspondence 
with  the  leaders  of  the  Reformation  in  Germany  and  Holland, 
and  it  was  ascertained  that  he  had  imbibed  a  partiality  for  their 
novelties,  the  consequence  was,  that  for  this  he  was  deposed  and 
disgraced.  His  successor  summoned  a  council  of  twenty-three 
bishops,  including  the  patriarchs  of  Jerusalem  and  Alexandria, 
in  which  Cyril  and  his  Protestant  doctrines  were  condemned  hi 
language  as  vigorous  as  that  of  Leo  X.  The  same  took  place 
in  a  subsequent  council  of  twenty-five  bishops,  including  the 


492        RESULTS  OF  THE  PROTESTANT  THEORY. 

metropolitan  of  Russia.  Again,  in  16*72,  Dositheus,  patriarch 
of  Jerusalem,  held  a  third  council  at  Bethlehem,  which  express- 
ly condemned  the  doctrine  of  Cyril  Lupor  and  the  Protestants* 
(See  Prepet.  de  la  Far,  vol.  4,  liv.  8.)" 

Mr.  B.  says,  on  page  405  :  "  It  is  also  notorious  that  the 
Christian  churches  in  England  and  Ireland  held  the  Protestant 
doctrines  in  their  essential  purity,  before  and  when  the  first  emis- 
saries of  the  Church  of  Rome  invaded  them,  and  began  to  pros- 
elyte them  to  the  Roman  Hierarchy." 

The  same  position,  in  substance,  is  asserted  by  Blackstone, 
in  his  Commentaries  on  the  Laws  of  England,  (b.  4,  c.  8,  p.  105,) 
that  "  the  ancient  British  church,  by  whomsoever  planted,  was 
i  stranger  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome  and  his  pretended  authority." 

As  these  churches  are  acknowledged  to  have  been  in  com- 
munion with  the  See  of  Rome  many  ages  before  the  days  of 
Luther,  it  is  not  a  matter  of  so  much  importance  as  to  what  was 
their  early  faith.  But  as  to  the  matter  of  fact  regarding  the  an- 
cient British  Church,  Dr.  Ives,  in  his  able  work,  "  Trials  of  a 
Mind,"  has  demonstrated  that  the  learned  divine  and  the  distin- 
guished commentator  are  both  mistaken  in  their  positions.  This 
he  has  done  by  a  careful  examination  of  contemporary  testimony. 
(P.  215-25.) 

This  brings  me  to  the  new  position  of  Mr.  B. 

"  The  inquiry,"  he  says,  "  as  to  the  existence  of  Protestant- 
ism before  Luther,  and  when  and  where,  (besides  my  previous 
replies,)  may  thus  be  finally  settled.  You  admit  that  the  doc- 
trines taught  by  the  apostles,  and  recorded  in  the  Bibla,  are 
true  Christianity — so  do  I.  We  both  also  allow  that  these  doc- 
trines have  been,  according  to  Christ's  promise  to  his  Church, 
held  and  taught  by  the  true  Church  ever  since.  Thus,  if  your 
present  doctrines  contradict  the  Bible  at  every  step,  and  if  ours 
harmonize  \\ith  it,  it  follows  that  we  are  the  true  Church,  and 
that  our  doctrines  have  been  taught  and  held  in  every  age.  Bu-t 
I  have  proved  this  at  large,  as  to  both  faith  and  morals,  and 
worship."  (P.  446.) 

I  must  say  that  this  position,  whether  true  or  false,  is  more 
frank,  bold,  open  and  manly,  than  the  attempt  to  prove,  from  his- 
torical testimony,  that  the  Protestant  doctrines  ever  were  held 
and  taught  by  any  party,  great  or  small,  before  the  alleged  Ref- 


RESULTS  OF  THE  PROTESTANT  THEORY.         493 

ormation.  It  does  not  seek  to  delude  you  with  the  confident 
profession  of  ability  to  sustain  such  an  historical  fact,  and  then 
utterly  fail  to  do  it. 

The  essence  of  this  new  ground  is  this  :  it  makes  the  solution 
of  every  question,  as  well  historical  as  doctrinal,  depend  upon 
the  construction  put  upon  the  Scriptures  by  each  individual.  If 
true,  this  position  renders  wholly  unnecessary  all  the  grounds 
previously  taken  by  Mr.  B.  It  wholly  excludes  the  necessity  of 
historical  inquiry,  so  far  as  the  Church  is  concerned.  The  set- 
tlement of  the  question,  what  Church  did  exist  during  certain 
ages  before  the  alleged  Reformation,  is  settled  simply  by  decid- 
ing, from  individual  construction,  what  Church  ought  to  have 
existed  during  those  times.  This  position  is  one  of  those  short, 
pithy,  but  comprehensive  grounds  that  go  directly  to  the  point. 
Like  the  theory  of  an  invisible  Church,  it  avoids  many  old  diffi- 
culties, though  it  may  have  some  new  ones  of  its  own. 

It  always  occurred  to  me,  that  if  we  wish  to  prove  the  ful- 
filment of  an  admitted  promise,  then  the  simplest  and  most  sat- 
isfactory mode  was  to  show  the  historical  fact,  that  it  had  been 
so  fulfilled.  It  also  seemed  to  me,  that  if  we  wish  to  show  the 
continued  identity  and  existence  of  a  visible  and  universal 
Church  for  and  during  the  long  period  of  fifteen  centuries,  then 
the  most  logical  aud  certain  mode  of  doing  so  was  to  produce 
the  direct  historical  proof  of  the  simple  matter  of  fact.  As  such 
a  Church  is  admitted  to  have  been  promised  by  Christ,  its  ex- 
istence during  that  period  could  be  proved,  if  true,  from  the  sim- 
ple records  of  history. 

But  Mr.  B.  proposes  a  different  mode.  He  proposes  to  look 
into  Scripture,  and  from  his  own  construction,  to  arrive  at  the 
conclusion  what  doctrines,  in  theory,  the  true,  visible  Catholic 
Church  ought  to  teach,  and  from  this  verbal  construction,  to 
assume  the  historical  fact,  that  these  doctrines  have  been  taught 
in  every  age.  He  proposes  to  supply  the  defective  records  of 
history  by  construction  ;  and,  in  the  same  way,  to  refresh  the 
memory  of  past  ages. 

He  who  holds  the  doctrine  of  an  invisible  Church,  when 
naked  what  historical  testimony  he  can  produce  to  prove  its  ex- 
istence, may  very  consistently  reply  that  history  could  not  at- 
test the  existence  of  that  which  was  invisible.  But  Mr.  B.  as- 


494  RESULTS    OF   THE    PROTESTANT    THEORY. 

sumes  to  prove,  by  verbal  construction,  the  actual  and  positive 
existence  of  a  great  visible  Church  that  no  one  ever  saw — 
a  teaching  Church  that  no  one  ever  heard — a  universal  or  Cath- 
olic Church  that  was  never  known  to  spread  anywhere — or  if 
this  Church  was  seen,  heard,  and  did  extend  over  the  earth,  then 
the  negligent  and  ungenerous  past  forgot  to  record  the  fact — 
that  while  they  recorded  the  existence  of  some  four  hundred 
different,  schismatical,  contaminated,  and  apostate  Churches, 
they  only  forgot  the  true  Church,  visible  and  Catholic.  Where 
were  the  divines  and  writers  of  this  alleged  true  Church,  that 
they  never  spoke  of  her,  and  have  given  her  no  place  upon  the 
page  of  history?  Where  were  her  enemies,  that  they  were  si- 
lent ?  Or  did  the  true  Church  have  neither  enemies  nor  friends  ? 
Was  she  a  blank  ?  Was  she  neither  good  nor  bad,  and,  there- 
fore, unworthy  of  any  notice  whatever  ?  What  sort  of  a  true 
Church  was  it,  of  which  no  one  cared  to  speak  ?  Where  were 
her  glorious  martyrs  ?  Did  they  too  pass  away, 

*'  Unwept,  tinhonored,  and  unsung  "  ? 

In  short,  what  sort  of  a  visible  universal  Church  was  it  that 
existed  for  so  long  a  time,  of  whose  existence  history  saith  not  ? 
Is  it  not  much  more  rational  to  suppose,  that  Mr.  B.  may  be 
mistaken  in  his  construction  of  the  Bible,  about  which  so  many 
men,  equally  learned,  have  so  widely  differed,  than  to  suppose 
all  history  at  fault  ?  We  have,  as  Bossuet  says,  the  most  full  and 
minute  lists  of  the  ancient  heretics,  and  the  peculiar  tenets  of 
each  party,  and  yet  no  mention  is  made  of  this  assumed  true 
visible  Catholic  Church. 

How  the  assumed  facts  of  history  will  multiply,  under  this 
most  flexible  position !  As  Mr.  B.,  by  his  construction,  can 
prove  the  historical  existence  of  a  Calvinistic  Church,  extending 
irom  the  days  of  the  apostles  to  the  present  time,  so  each  of  the 
,tive  hundred  existing  sects  in  Protestant  Christendom  can  do 
the  same,  in  the  same  way,  and  make  themselves  worthy  ances- 
tors, of  the  same  faith  with  themselves.  How  the  imaginary 
ancient  sects  will  rise  from  the  dead,  at  the  bidding  of  each  in- 
dividual !  Like  the  fabled  men  of  Roderick  Dhu,  they  rise  and 
fall  as  mystic  shadows. 

To  form  a  new  party  under  such  a  theory,  all  that  need  be 


RESULTS    OF   THE   PROTESTANT   THEORY.  495 

shown  is,  that  in  the  opinion  of  individuals,  the  Scriptures  have 
been  misconstrued.  It  is  not  necessary  to  show  from  history, 
that  such  opinions  were  ever  held  in  point  of  fact — that  there 
ever  was  such  a  Church  as  the  new  one  proposed  ;  nor  will  the 
entire  absence  of  any  and  all  historical  testimony,  defeat  the 
claims  of  such  an  institution,  under  such  a  theory.  The  origi- 
nator has  only  to  say  that  it  existed  in  the  days  of  the  apostles, 
and  whether  it  died  out  so  suddenly  and  silently,  and,  like  the 
closing  furrow  of  the  ship  as  she  glides  through  the  waves,  dis- 
appeared so  completely  as  to  leave  no  historical  trace  behind,  he 
may  still  consistently  contend  that  it  visibly  existed  at  one 
time,  and  must  have  existed  ever  since,  though  "  buried,"  as 
Waddington  says,  "  in  the  darkness  of  those  ages,"  and  still  re- 
mained buried  at  the  alleged  Reformation. 

And  is  it  not  a  curious  and  distressing  state  of  necessity, 
that  compels  learned  men  to  stultify  themselves  by  denouncing 
certain  tenets  of  the  Catholic  Church,  as  alleged  monstrous  er- 
rors ;  and  yet,  when  they  are  called  upon  to  select  their  ances- 
tors, they  choose,  as  their  alleged  true  Church,  those  sects  hold- 
ing, in  part,  these  same  alleged  errors  f  In  a  word,  they  con- 
demn those  tenets  as  heresies,  and  then  insist  that  the  true 
Church  can  still  teach  them.  And  they  compose  their  true 
Church  of  sects,  not  only  holding  and  teaching  so  many  of  the 
very  alleged  errors  they  denounce,  but  also  holding  others, 
equally  objectionable  to  both  Catholics  and  Protestants. 

§  13.   The  theory  of  Bishop  Hoadley  and  Dr.  Balguy. 

The  theory  concerning  the  Church,  as  devised  by  Bishop 
Hoadley,  and  more  clearly  and  fully  developed  by  his  distin- 
guished disciple,  Dr.  Balguy,  is  still  more  latitudinarian  than 
that  of  the  French  Calvinist  ministers,  Claude  and  Jurieu.  As 
the  Bishop  did  not  agree  with  the  views  of  his  own  Church, 
whose  creed  he  had  subscribed  and  publicly  acknowledged,  in 
reference  to  the  Church  question,  as  well  as  all  other  questions 
connected  therewith,  it  became  necessary  to  give  a  definition  of 
his  own.  He  accordingly  defines  a  Church  to  be,  "  the  number 
of  persons,  whether  great  or  small,  whether  dispersed  or  united, 
who  are  sincerely  and  willingly  subject  to  Christ  alone,  as  to  a 


496  RESULTS    OF   THE    PROTESTANT    THEORY. 

lawgiver  and  judge,  in  matters  relating  to  the  favor  of  God  and 
eternal  salvation." 

According  to  this  definition,  neither  the  purity  of  doctrine, 
nor  the  right  administration  of  the  sacraments,  nor  the  unity  of 
its  members,  nor  the  succession  of  ministers,  is  at  all  requisite  to 
constitute  the  true  Church.  All  that  is  required  is,  that  the 
members  shall  be  "sincerely  and  willingly  subject  to  Christ 
alone,  as  to  a  lawgiver  and  judge,"  &c.  From  his  definition,  am1 
from  his  language  in  other  places,  it  appears  to  be  clear,  that 
the  Bishop  only  required  integrity  of  purpose  to  constitute  a 
Christian  ;  "  as  God's  favor,"  he  says,  "  cannot  depend  upon  his 
actual  being  or  continuing  in  any  particular  method,  (of  re- 
ligion,) but  upon  his  real  sincerity  in  the  conduct  of  his  con- 
science." 

The  reason  that  induced  this  distinguished  Bishop  to  adopt 
this  theory,  was  his  struggle  to  free  the  Protestant  fundamental 
rule  from  the  charge  of  cruelty  and  contradiction,  and  to  sub- 
stitute something  for  the  Catholic  certainty.  To  say  that  each 
individual  must  construe  the  entire  Code  of  Christ  for  himself 
alone,  and  yet  to  hold  that  he  must  construe  correctly,  or  be 
finally  lost,  was  to  lay  down  a  cruel  and  contradictory  theory. 
To  avoid  this  plain  logical  result,  the  Bishop  placed  the  safety 
of  the  Christian  "  in  his  real  sincerity  in  the  conduct  of  his  con- 
science." If  he  failed  to  arrive  at  the  true  faith,  in  the  exercise 
of  this  sincerity,  it  was  not  his  fault,  and  he  would  be  saved  as 
well  without,  as  with  true  faith.  The  Protestant  fundamental 
rule  had  placed  a  burthen  upon  the  individual,  too  grievous  to 
be  borne.  It  imposed  upon  him  an  individual  responsibility, 
evidently  disproportioned  to  his  capacity. 

But  this  definition  still  contained  some  restrictions.  The  be- 
liever had  great  latitude  left  him,  it  is  true,  but  he  was  still 
required  to  be  subject  to  "  Christ  as  a  lawgiver  and  judge." 
The  Bishop  made  the  Church  universal,  and  then  composed  it 
only  of  those  persons  who  are  "  sincerely  and  willingly  subject 
to  Christ  alone."  The  tests  of  willingness  and  sincerity  were 
impracticable.  These  qualities  being  known  to  God  only,  the 
Church  could  not  determine  the  question,  whether  they  did  or 
did  not  exist  in  oach  individual  member.  The  clear-headed  Dr. 
Balguy  saw  that  a  visible  Church  must  contain  members  not 


RESULTS   OF   THE    PROTESTANT   THEORY.  497 

willing  and  sincere ;  and  yet  these  members  must  ostensibly 
enjoy,  in  her  communion,  all  the  privileges  enjoyed  by  others. 
He  also  saw  that  a  visible  Church  was  the  only  one  that  could 
be  defined  with  any  practical  utility,  and  with  which  we  could 
make  ourselves  acquainted.  Therefore,  the  tests  of  willingness 
and  sincerity,  as  applied  to  a  visible  Church,  which  must  expel 
heretics,  were  simply  idle.  No  one  could  practically  apply 
them. 

"  The  good  must  merit  God's  peculiar  care, 
But  who  but  God  can  tell  us  who  they  are  ?  " 

Besides  this,  Dr.  Balguy  could  not  see  the  consistency  be- 
tween the  Bishop's  definition  of  the  Church,  and  his  leading  prin- 
ciple of  integrity  alone.  As  God's  favor  to  each  individua 
depended  upon  his  "  real  sincerity  in  the  conduct  of  his  con- 
science," it  was  difficult  to  see  how,  or  why,  he  should  be  sub- 
ject to  "  Christ  alone  as  a  lawgiver."  In  such  a  case,  our  Lord 
must  have  been  a  most  anomalous  Legislator.  To  say  that  He 
was  a  lawgiver,  and  had  made  and  promulgated  His  Code  in 
a,  positive  form,  expressed  in  human  language,  commanding  and 
prohibiting  what  He  pleased,  requiring  this  truth  to  be  be- 
lieved, and  that  error  to  be  avoided,  and  this  or  that  to  be  done 
or  omitted,  and  promising,  in  advance,  certain  rewards  for 
obedience,  and  denouncing  certain  punishments  for  disobe- 
dience ;  and,  then,  after  all  this  labor,  and  all  these  pledges  of 
His  veracity,  that  certain  results  should  follow  certain  states  of 
faith  and  obedience  or  of  disbelief  and  disobedience,  to  maki 
our  Lord's  favor  to  depend,  not  upon  the  actual  doing  or  omit- 
ting that  which  was  actually  commanded  and  prohibited,  but 
simply  upon  the  *'  real  sincerity  in  the  conduct  of  each  one's 
conscience,"  was  certainly  making  Christ  do  a  very  idle  and 
useless  thing.  It  is  just  as  easy  to  understand  the  logic  and 
good  sense  of  a  positive  law  for  the  predestinated,  commanding 
them  to  do  or  not  to  do  certain  specified  things,  which  they 
must  do,  or  not  do,  as  well  without  the  law  as  with  it,  as  to 
understand  the  position  of  the  Bishop. 

It,  therefore,  became  necessary  for  Dr.  Balguy  to  improve 
upon  the  definition  of  Bishop  Hoadley.  Unless  a  definition  in- 
elude  all  that  is  required,  and  no  more,  it  lacks  completeness 


498        RESULTS  OF  THE  PROTESTANT  THEORY. 

and  certainty — two  requisites  necessary  to  constitute  a  good 
definition.  Dr.  Balguy,  therefore,  defined  a  Church  very 
briefly  and  comprehensively,  as  follows  : 

"  A  Church  is  a  number  of  persons  agreeing  to  unite  in  pub- 
lic assemblies,  for  the  performance  of  religious  duties." 

This  definition  cannot  be  exceeded  in  some  respects.  It  is 
.is  brief,  comprehensive,  and  latitudinarian  as  possible.  It  can- 
not be  made  shorter  in  words,  or  wider  in  meaning.  It  in- 
cludes all  of  every  religion — Christian,  Jewish,  Mahometan, 
and  Pagan.  It  would  seem  that  the  learned  divine  was  prede- 
termined that  no  improvement  should  eve*  Le  made  upon  his 
definition,  by  any  Protestant  of  the  latitadinarian  school.  In 
that  line  he  at  once  attained  the  su.nmit  of  excellence,  and 
stands  without  any  rival,  even  am^ng  those  of  his  own  school. 
And  it  certainly  is  an  improvement  upon  the  Bishop's  definition, 
in  the  way  of  consistency.  It  is  like  some  bills  in  Chancery, 
framed  with  a  double  aspect,  so  as  to  meet  every  possible  state 
of  case.  It  is  wide  enough  to  embrace  every  worshipper  of 
every  kind. 

But  this  definition  is  too  wide  for  any  man  professing  to  be 
a  Christian.  The  only  truly  consistent  Protestant  creed,  is  the 
fundamental  rule  itself.  All  being  independent  equals,  every  one 
should  have  the  right  to  preach  who  pleased,  and  to  preach 
what  he  pleased,  and  to  baptize  in  any  mode  he  pleased,  and  to 
administer  any  sacrament  he  pleased.  The  right  in  all  to  preach 
and  baptize  should  be  equal,  and  the  actual  exercise  of  that 
right  should  depend  upon  the  will  of  each  one,  and  his  power  to 
secure  hearers.  If  he  did  not  preach  to  suit  others,  they,  being 
equally  free  to  hear  or  not  to  hear,  to  contribute  or  not  to  his 
support,  might  leave  him  to  preach  to  the  forests  and  hills,  or 
be  silent.  There  would  be  no  necessity  for  any  form  of  Church 
government,  no  expulsion  for  heresy,  as  there  would  be  a  "  sov- 
ereign antidote  against "  it,  as  Mr.  Campbell  says.  The  theory 
and  practice  would  be  consistent.  All  the  privileges  guaranteed 
by  the  fundamental  rule  itself,  would  be  practically  secured, 
Each  one  would  be  left  to  construe  for  himself,  and  to  hold  any 
doctrine  he  pleased,  so  he  referred  it  to  the  Bible  alone. 

And  that  Protestantism  has  been  regularly  approaching  this 
consistent  creed,  step  by  step,  may  be  readily  seen  by  any  pa- 


RESULTS    O¥    THE    PROTESTANT   THEORY.  499 

tient  inquirer,  who  will  examine  into  its  history.  The  plan  of 
holding  matters  of  difference  as  not  material  must,  sooner  01 
later,  end  in  holding  all  immaterial,  except  the  fundamental  rule 
itself.  As  all  can  agree  as  to  that,  this  would  form  a  basis  of 
practical  union.  And  to  Zuinglius  is  to  be  ascribed  the  first 
step  in  this  consistent,  but  latitudinarian  path.  In  the  Confer- 
ence of  Marpurg,  after  he  found  he  could  not  convince  Luther 
in  regard  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence,  he  then  asked 
Luther  to  tolerate  the  difference.  The  next  step  was  taken  by 
the  Calvinists  in  holding  this  doctrine  immaterial.  Then  in 
England,  under  Elizabeth,  it  was  so  held.  Then  came  the 
Hoadley  School,  which  would  tolerate  almost,  if  not  quite,  every 
thing.  The  Lutherans  on  the  Continent  degenerated  into  a  veiled 
Deism,  if  not  downright  infidelity.  The  Calvinists  of  Geneva 
have  also  done  the  same.  Without  a  professed  change  upon 
the  face  of  their  creeds,  they  have,  like  the  members  of  the 
Church  of  England,  departed  from  them  in  practice.  And  the 
theory  of  Mr.  Campbell  is  a  decided  and  consistent  step  in  that 
direction,  in  reference  to  many  tenets,  though  not  in  reference 
to  all. 

Among  some  Indian  tribes  it  is  a  practice,  when  two  or  more 
of  their  warriors  or  chiefs  have  a  dispute  about  a  piece  of  prop- 
erty, and  the  dispute  is  likely  to  result  in  serious  consequences, 
to  destroy  the  property  itself.  If,  for  example,  the  dispute  be 
about  a  horse,  they  kill  the  animal.  The  cause  of  dispute  being 
removed,  though  injustice  is  done,  peace  is  thereby  restored. 
This  same  result  must  follow  when  former  articles  of  faith  are 
subsequently  held  immaterial.  If  once  held  immaterial,  of  course, 
they  can  constitute  no  matters  of  serious  difference  among  sen- 
sible men. 

§  14.  Reflections. 

In  reference  to  Mr.  Campbell's  claims  to  be  a  reformer,  Mr. 
Rice  remarks : 

"  I  do  not  remember  to  have  seen  a  man  who  pretended  to 
religion  of  any  kind,  who  did  not  consider  himself  rather  more 
orthodox  than  others.  This  is  a  common  weakness  of  human 
nature.  It  displays  itself  everywhere,  and  especially  in  men 
who  imagine  themselves  to  be  great  reformers,  and  believe  all 


500        RESULTS  OF  THE  PROTEST  ANT  THEORY. 

but  themselves  in  serious  error.  If  it  be  true,  as  my  friend  evi« 
dently  thinks,  that  of  all  the  world,  he  only,  and  those  who 
agree  with  him,  are  in  the  light,  whilst  all  Christendom  grope  in 
midnight  darkness ;  it  follows,  as  a  necessary  consequence,  that 
he  is  one  of  the  most  orthodox  men.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
about  it."  (Debate  761.) 

There  is  certainly  great  force  and  truth  in  this  statement 
But  while  it  applies  to  Mr.  Campbell,  does  it  not  equally  apply 
to  Mr.  Rice  ?  How  stands  the  case  with  him  ?  Did  not  Luther, 
his  predecessor  and  head,  make  even  greater  pretensions  than 
Mr.  Campbell  ?  Luther  not  only  claimed  that  all  "  Christen- 
dom groped  in  midnight  darkness,"  but  he  claimed  the  right  to 
reform  it,  not  only  because  he  understood  the  Scriptures  better 
than  any  other  man  who  then  lived,  or  had  lived  during  the 
preceding  thousand  years,  but  also  in  virtue  of  an  extraordinary 
mission,  attested  by  miracles. 

But  how  natural  it  is  for  men  to  lay  down  one  rule  for  them- 
selves, and  another  rule  for  others.  Even  the  man  who  steals 
from  others,  complains  bitterly  if  another  steals  from  him. 
W  hen  Luther  claimed  the  right  to  reform  the  Church  of  Rome, 
he  denied  the  right  to  Zuinglius  and  others  to  reform  his  Church. 
Calvin,  who  resisted  Luther's  pretensions  to  the  entire  right  of 
reformation,  and  claimed  an  equal  right  for  himself  neverthe- 
less was  instrumental  in  having  Servetus  burned  for  assuming 
the  same  right.  And  in  all  cases,  the  older  Protestant  sects  de- 
claim loudly  against  all  new-comers  into  the  common  domain  of 
Reformation.  But  in  condemning  others,  they  inevitably  con- 
demn themselves. 

Mr.  Rice  says  in  another  place : 

"  Reform  is  the,  watchword  of  every  demagogue  and  of  every 
fanatic."  (Debate  842.) 

This  is  surely  a  great  truth — a  notable  fact,  and  gives  rise  to 
Borne  very  important  and  useful  reflections. 

All  the  bad  and  immoral  men  in  Christendom  are,  at  heart, 
:ufidels.  They  all  belong  to  that  class.  The  natural  instincts 
of  their  conduct  lead  them  there.  There  is  something  so  ut- 
terly inconsistent  between  the  belief  of  Christianity  and  the 
practice  of  gross  immorality,  that  the  two  cannot  be  found  to- 
gether. Many  men,  however,  who  do  not  believe  in  Christian 


RESULTS    OF    THE    PROTESTANT    THEOR1.  501 

ity,  are  yet  practically  good  men  as  citizens  and  neighbors.  But 
it  is  a  great  and  gratifying  fact,  and  a  most  powerful  argument 
in  favor  of  Christianity,  that  ALL  the  bad  and  wicked  men  are 
on  ONE  side,  and  at  heart  OPPOSED  to  it,  whatever  may  be 
their  professions. 

And  so  all  the  demagogues  and  fanatics  in  religion  are  Re- 
formers, as  Mr.  Rice  justly  says.  They  are  one  and  all  the  inces- 
sant advocates  of  the  principle  of  private  interpretation  in  the  last 
resort.  Demagogism  and  fanaticism  in  religion  cannot,  in  the 
very  nature  of  things,  be  found  in  the  Catholic  system.  They 
cannot  live  there,  There  is  no  demagogical  or  fanatical  oxy- 
gen in  that  atmosphere.  There  is  nothing  there  for  them  to 
feed  upon.  Their  necessary  and  indispensable  food  is  found  out- 
side. There  being  nothing  in  the  creed  of  that  Church  to  re- 
form, and  nothing  changeable  in  her  infallible  theory,  such  a 
watchward  is  not  permitted  to  be  used  with  reference  to  her  ar- 
ticles of  faith.  It  would  be  as  logical  to  speak  of  reforming  the 
original  law  of  Christ,  as  to  speak  of  reforming  a  creed  assumed 
to  be  infallible.  Whoever,  therefore,  embraces  that  creed,  can- 
not say  reform  in  reference  to  the  creed  itself.  It  is  a  word  un- 
known to  a  stable  religious  system  of  faith.  And  it  is  a  grati- 
fying fact,  and  a  strong  argument  in  favor  of  the  Catholic 
system,  that  all  the  demagogues  and  fanatics  in  religion  are  op- 
posed to  it.  They  are  invariably  found  ALL  on  ONE  side,  and 
AGAINST  it. 

And  while  I  cheerfully  admit  that  all  reformers  were  not  dem- 
agogues or  fanatics,  truth  compels  me  to  say  that  I  think  most 
of  tljem  have  been  so.  And,  admitting  that  I  may  be  mistaken 
as  to  the  proportion,  yet  it  is  clear  that  the  Protestant  principle 
produces  the  very  and  only  food  upon  which  they  can  live.  And 
while  it  produces  this  food  in  superabundance,  it  provides  no  ef- 
ficient and  consistent  check  to  its  use.  Under  the  fundamental 
and  supreme  rule  of  individual  and  independent  interpretation, 
what  was  allowed  to  Luther  must  be  allowed  to  the  Lutherans  '•> 
and  what  was  allowed  to  Calvin  and  his  colleagues,  must  be  al- 
lowed, under  the  same  rule,  to  others.  Mr.  Campbell  had,  there 
fore,  the  common  right  existing  under,  and  guaranteed  by,  the 
rule  itself.  What  check,  then,  is  there  upon  demagogism  and 
fanaticism  in  the  Protestant  theory  ?  Nothing  but  the  opinion 


RESULTS    OF   THE    PROTESTANT   THEORY. 

and  judgment  of  each  individual.  And  in  the  war  of  contending 
demagogues  and  fanatics,  how  shall  they  decide  ?  How  hav6 
they  decided  in  the  past  f  Let  facts  and  history  answer. 

§15.  Mr.  Campbell's  theory  of  Protestant  union. 

In  reference  to  the  differences  among  Protestants,  Mr.  Camp- 
bell says : 

"  There  are  one  or  two  Protestant  sects  who  differ  in  some 
important  matters,  and  are  as  repugnant  to  each  other  as  are 
Jansenists  and  Jesuits  in  the  Roman  church;  but  all  Protestant 
sects  unite  in  several  acts  of  religious  worship,  in  acknowledg- 
ment of  the  same  code  of  morals,  and  in  the  positive  institutions 
of  Christianity,  such  as  the  Lord's  day,  the  Lord's  supper,  bap- 
tism, prayer,  praise,  &c.  Sects  and  differences  exist  which  ought 
not :  but  still  they  harmonize  as  much  in  their  general  and  spe- 
cial bonds  of  union,  as  do  the  Romanists  themselves.  What  are 
the  Augustinians,  Dominicans,  Franciscans,  Jansenists,  Jesuits, 
<fec.,  but  orders  (or  sects)  called  after  the  different  saints  f  " 
(Debate  C.  &  P.,  175.)  * 

The  essence  of  this  statement,  if  true,  is  based  upon  the 
principle  of  compromise  or  compensation.  Mr.  C.  says,  in  sub- 
stance, if  we  are  divided,  so  are  you.  If  this  were  true,  it 
might  well  be  asked,  What,  then,  has  your  alleged  Reformation 
accomplished  ?  Has  it  produced  any  greater  union  ? 

But  are  the  assumed  facts  here  stated,  true  f  What  does  a 
calm,  fair,  and  dispassionate  detailed  examination  of  the  differ- 
ences existing  among  Protestants,  show?  Mr.  C.  says  they 
agree  in  "  several "  particulars.  That  is  true ;  but  does,  this 
agreement  in  several  things  constitute  that  unity  in  speaking 
the  same  things,  and  in  being  perfectly  joined  together  in  the 
same  mind  and  in  the  same  judgment,  as  St.  Paul  has  it  ?  All 
Christians,  as  well  as  Jews  and  Mohammedans,  agree  in  several 
matters,  but  is  this  unity  ? 

What,  then,  constitutes  the  unity  contemplated  by  the  law 
of  Christ  ?  Certainly,  the  same  agreement  that  existed  in  the 
Apostolic  Church.  That  Church  was  united  in  the  SAME 

*  The  Jansenists  were  not  an  order  in  the  Church,  but  the  teachers  of  oer* 
tain  errors  of  doctrine. 


RESULTS    OF    THE    PROTESTANT    THEORY.  503 

JUDGMENT  in  reference  to  ALL  THINGS  held  material  by 
the  CHURCH  HERSELF,  and  in  the  same  CHURCH  GOV- 
ERNMENT. And  it  must  be  obvious,  that  if  there  be  a  true 
vi-ible  Church,  that  she  must  know  herself,  and  must  also  know 
what  requisites  make  up  her  faith ;  and  that,  consequently, 
wlun  she  decides  that  certain  specified  articles  are  necessary  to 
her  creed,  and  condemns  others  as  untrue,  that  she  must  be 
right.  On  the  contrary,  if  a  Church  determines  certain  arti- 
cles as  essential  to  faith,  and  certain  other  articles  as  not  essen- 
tial, if  there  be  error  in  either  case,  that  Church  cannot  be  in 
the  right,  and  cannot,  for  that  reason,  be  the  true  Church.  If* 
then,  two  or  more  Churches  decide  differently  upon  the  same 
matter,  held  by  them  to  be  essential  to  faith,  it  is  clear,  that 
they  cannot  all  be  the  true  Church,  or  parts  of  the  true  Church. 
For  example,  when  Mr.  Campbell  and  his  Church  hold  that  im- 
mersion alone  is  baptism,  and  that  infant  baptism,  in  any  mode, 
is  null  and  void,  how  can  such  a  Church  be  a  part  or  a  branch 
of  a  Church,  which  holds  precisely  the  contrary  ?  And  when 
Mr.  C.  (as  well  as  Mr.  Breckenridge  and  other  Calvinists)  come 
to  speak  of  Transubstantiation,  Confession,  and  Absolution,  as 
grievous  errors  of  the  Catholic  Church,  and  make  these  tenets 
a  most  material  portion  of  the  reasons  assigned  to  justify  the 
alleged  Reformation,  how  can  they  call  the  Lutherans,  who 
hold  Consubstantiation,  Confession,  and  Absolution,  a  part  of 
the  true  Church  ?  For  every  sensible  man  must  see,  that  all 
their  objections  against  Transubstantiation  apply  to  Consubstan- 
tiation ;  and  that  the  latter,  as  the  Sacramentarians  insisted  in 
the  days  of  Luther,  is  more  inconsistent  with  the  Scripture  than 
the  former,  conceding  them  both  to  be  untrue.  And  how  can 
they  claim  the  Church  of  England  as  part  of  this  great,  but  dis- 
cordant, alleged  true  Church  ?  She  holds  Confession  and  Ab- 
solution. And  when  the  great  Synod  of  Dort,  representing  the 
entire  Calvinistic  world,  laid  down  those  stern  Calvinistic  doc- 
trines, and  expelled  the  Remonstrants  from  their  communion, 
did  both  these  parties  belong  to  the  same  Church  ?  If  so,  how 
did  the  Remonstrants  bear  the  relation  of  "  heathens  and  pub- 
licans "  to  the  Calvinists  ?  One  party  maintained  predestina- 
tion, election,  and  final  perseverance,  and  the  other  the  reverse ; 
and  the  Synod  held  the  Calvinistic  doctrines  as  fundamental  ar- 


504        RESULTS  OF  THE  PROTESTANT  THEORY. 

tides  of  faith,  and  the  opposite  tenets  as  heresy.  And  the 
Methodists,  and  all  the  other  five  hundred  sects,  differ  from 
each  other  in  so  many  points  deemed  by  them,  and  each  of 
them,  so  far  material,  that  they  cannot  be  induced  to  unite  un- 
der one  system  of  church  government,  having  one  acknowledged 
head;  and  how  can  they  form  parts  of  CXNE  Church?  The 
Lutheran  excommunicates  the  Calvinist — the  Calvinist  the  Ar- 
minian  —  the  Baptist  the  Psedo-baptist — the  Trinitarian  the 
Anti-Trinitarian — the  Episcopalian  the  Independent — the  be- 
liever in  the  Atonement  the  Unitarian — the  Methodist  the  Anti- 
nomian ;  and  yet,  under  this  confused  theory,  these  different 
parties,  while  they  are  thus  excommunicating  each  other,  are 
held  to  be  but  parts  of  the  true  Church,  as  were  the  Churches 
of  Jerusalem,  Antioch,  Ephesus,  and  other  places  but  branches 
of  the  Apostolic  Church.  A  Church  that  does  not  know  her- 
self— does  not  know  her  faith — does  not  know  the  members  of 
her  own  body,  is  still  the  true  Church,  under  this  most  latitudi- 
narian  theory.  What  assistance  does  Christ,  the  alleged  head 
of  this  confused  Church,  give  to  her,  when  she  remains  in  this 
state  of  profound  ignorance  of  her  own  faith  f  Is  confused 
and  contradictory  ignorance  an  attribute  of  the  one  true  Church 
of  Christ?  And  if,  on  the  contrary,  it  be  assumed  that  this 
mongrel  Church  does  know  herself  and  her  faith,  then  why  is 
she  continually  excommunicating  her  own  children  for  immate- 
rial errors  of  mere  opinion  f 

But  the  Church  of  Christ  is  a  Kingdom,  and  a  visible  King- 
dom— a  united  Kingdom.  It  has  but  one  law  for  its  govern 
ment.  This  law  requires  uniform  faith  in  certain  fixed  truths. 
How,  then,  can  this  visible  Kingdom  have  different  govern- 
ments, antagonistic  to  and  independent  of  each  other,  and  re- 
quiring faith  in  precisely  opposite  tenets,  so  that  there  is  one 
faith  for  one  part,  and  a  different  faith  for  another  part  ?  Did 
two  or  more  communities,  having  entirely  separate  and  hide- 
pendent  governments,  each  acting  for  itself  alone,  ever  consti- 
tute one  government,  because  their  citizens  or  subjects  acciden- 
tally agreed  in  race,  language,  customs,  laws,  and  manners,  and 
hi  the  forms  of  government  ?  How  can  any  associated  body  of 
men  exist,  without  having  one  government  ?  Do  all  the  sover- 
eign independent  states  of  the  civilized  world  constitute  but  one 


RESULTS   OF   THE   PROTESTANT   THEORY.  505 

government,  simply  because  they  are  all  sovereign,  and  agree, 
substantially,  in  a  great  number  of  particulars  ?  Unity  of  faith 
and  unity  of  government  must  exist  to  constitute  the  one  Church 
of  Christ.  Separate  organizations,  each  acting  exclusively  fot 
itself,  and  teaching  its  creed  as  its  own,  and  for  itself  alone, 
never  can  form  "  The  Church  "  spoken  of  so  often  by  St.  Paul. 

But  Mr.  C.  says  that  Protestants  harmonize  as  much  as  Ro- 
manists themselves,  and  asks,  "  What  are  the  Augustinians,  Do- 
minicans, Franciscans,  Jansenists,  Jesuits,  &c.,  but  orders  (or 
sects)  called  after  different  saints  ?  " 

When  I  first  read  this  statement,  I  was  under  the  impression 
that  these  alleged  differences  among  Catholics  would  compen- 
sate or  balance  the  undeniable  discords  among  Protestants. 
But  there  was  one  reflection  which  forced  itself  upon  my  mind 
with  great  power  :  that  if  this  assumed  state  of  case  was  in  fact 
true,  then  it  was  clear  that  the  true  Church,  if  it  existed  at  all, 
was  in  the  most  wretched  and  disorganized  state,  very  much 
like  a  clean  neat  apostasy  from  the  true  original  faith.  For 
my  common  sense  assured  me  that  this  faith  was  an  entirety — 
an  indestructible  whole,  consisting  of  united  parts — and  that 
the  moment  one  of  these  parts  wras  lost,  the  identity  of  the 
Church  was  at  once  destroyed,  and  the  promises  of  our  Lord 
had  clearly  failed.  And  I  could  just  as  easily  conceive  of  a 
house  with  nothing  but  the  foundation,  or  of  a  steam  engine  con- 
sisting of  nothing  but  the  boiler,  as  of  a  true,  visible,  catholic, 
and  apostolic  Church,  which  had  either  denied  a  single  true 
article  of  faith,  or  added  a  single  false  tenet  to  the  true.  If  the 
Church  could  err  in  one  essential  particular,  and  still  be  the 
true  Church,  she  could  err  in  two  or  more  ;  and  the  limit  once 
passed,  which  was  set  by  the  inflexible,  whole,  and  entire  law 
of  Christ,  there  could  be  no  bounds  fixed  beyond  which  she 
could  not  go.  Such  an  idea  was  utterly  destructive  of  the 
whole  theory,  that  Christ  was  a  Divine  Lawgiver.  I  could  not 
understand  how  our  Lord  could  ever  have  contemplated  a  mu- 
tilated Church.  I  could  not  think  that  He  ever  intended  that 
one  bone  of  her  should  be  broken ;  but  that  while  she  might  be 
wounded  by  her  enemies  for  the  moment,  she  would  soon  rise, 
like  her  Master,  still  sound,  though  bcarred,  and  as  triumphant 
and  beautiful  as  ever. 
44 


506  RESULTS    OF    THE    PROTESTANT    THEORY. 

But  I  inquired,  Is  it  true,  as  Mr.  C.  states  ?  What  are  the 
genuine  facts  ? 

In  reference  to  the  Jansenists  and  Jesuits,  I  found  that  they 
had  discussed  a  theological  question,  taking  different  sides;  and 
that  the  Church  condemned  the  Jansenists,  and  that  ended  the 
matter  with  Catholics. 

In  reference  to  the  Augustinians  and  other  orders  in  the 
Church,  I  found  that  they  were  not  sects  in  the  just  import  of 
that  word,  but  were  only  subordinate  communities,  organized 
for  different  purposes,  and  having  different  disciplinary  rules 
for  their  own  direction,  in  reference  to  matters  peculiar  to 
each.  I  found  that  all  the  members  of  these  different  orders 
were  required  to  believe  every  article  of  the  creed,  in  the  same 
way  precisely  that  every  member  of  the  Church  was  required 
to  do.  They  had  then  the  same  faith,  and  were  united  in  the 
same  judgment,  as  were  all  the  members  of  the  Church.  And 
not  only  so,  but  I  found  that  not  one  of  these  orders  could 
exist,  without  the  express  act  and  consent  of  the  Church — that 
the  Church  reserved  the  power  to  suppress  them  at  any  time, 
and  had  exercised  it  in  particular  cases — that  the  matters  pecu- 
liar to  each  order  did  not  relate  to  faith  at  all,  (which  was  a 
matter  they  could  not  touch,)  and  that  they  were  in  every  thing 
subordinate  to  the  Church.  I  found  also  that  the  questions 
they  were  allowed  to  discuss  were  questions  that  all  Catholics 
were  allowed  to  discuss,  being  questions  outside  the  creed — " 
questions  of  expediency  or  of  discipline,  or  questions  which  the 
Church  had  not  settled  by  any  decision ;  and  that  so  soon  as  a 
decision  was  made  on  any  question,  the  matter  was  ended. 

I  must  confess,  that  in  these  orders  I  could  see  no  divisions 
in  the  Church,  any  more  than  I  could  see  divisions  in  the  State, 
because  subordinate  municipal,  and  other  corporations,  were 
allowed  to  exist  by  express  acts  of  the  Legislature,  prescribing 
and  limiting  tneir  powers  to  such  matters  only  as  do  not  inter- 
fere or  clash  with  the  exercise  of  the  legitimate  powers  of  the 
State  herself.  These  corporations  are  the  mere  creatures  or 
agents  of  the  State,  deriving  all  their  powers  from  her,  existing 
by  her  will  and  pleasure,  and  are  not,  therefore,  divisions  pro- 
ducing discord  in  the  government.  And  so  with  reference  to 
these  orders.  They  derived  their  existence  from  the  express 


RESULTS    OF    THE    PROTESTANT    THEORY.  507 

act  of  the  Church,  exercised  all  their  powers  subordinate  to 
her,  and  held  their  existence  at  her  pleasure.  These  powers 
had  no  relation  to  faith,  were  expressly  limited  to  matters  in 
different,  and  were  not  allowed,  in  any  way,  to  interfere  with 
the  powers  of  the  Church.  They  are  merely  subordinate  limited 
orders,  organized  for  special  purposes,  and  governed  by  disci- 
plinary rules,  first  approved  by  the  Church  herself.  I  could  see 
no  discord  in  these  orders,  nothing  antagonistic  to  the  Church, 
unless  I  could  see  discord  between  a  subordinate  and  his  su- 
perior. 

But  in  reference  to  Protestant  divisions,  I  found  the  case 
far  different  in  two  great  and  essential  particulars:  1.  They  dif- 
fered as  to  matters  of  faith,  holding  precisely  opposite  views  in 
reference  to  the  same  matter.  2.  They  each  had  entire  sepa- 
rate and  independent  Church  organizations,  acting  each  alone 
for  itself,  and  acknowledging  no  common  superior.  In  other 
words,  they  were  independent  associations,  having  no  visible 
connection.  The  Methodists,  for  instance,  formally  decide  all 
questions  of  faith  and  practice  for  themselves,  and  from  this  de- 
cision there  is  no  appeal  to  any  other  power  on  earth.  So  of 
all  the  others.  They  are  no  more  connected  in  government  (if 
such  a  thing  exists  among  them  at  all)  than  independent  States. 
Whatever  similarity  of  views,  in  reference  to  some  points,  may 
exist  among  them,  arises  not  from  their  theories  of  organization. 
Each  association  being  separate  and  independent,  there  can  be 
no  subordination  among  them,  and  no  union.  . 

From  his  language  in  his  debate  with  Bishop  Purcell,  one 
would  be  compelled  to  infer,  that  these  divisions  were  very 
slight,  except  as  to  the  "one  or  two  Protestant  sects"  not 
specified  ;  and  even  as  to  these,  they  were  not  greater  than  the 
alleged  divisions  among  Catholics.  Among  other  things  they 
all  united  in,  as  stated  by  Mr.  C.,  was  baptism.  But  when  we 
look  to  his  debate  with  Mr.  Rice,  and  see  the  grounds  he  there 
took,  and  the  language  there  used,  we  begin  to  see  the  mighty 
chasms  that  lie  between  the  professed  views  of  different  Protes- 
tant sects.  And  even  in  Mr.  C.'s  view,  there  are  some  things 
so  different  from  most  other  Protestants,  that  they  constitute 
a  mighty  wall  of  separation.  In  the  debate  with  Mr.  Rice,  two 
of  the  propositions  maintained  by  Mr.  C.  were :  "  Baptism  is 


508  RESULTS    OF   THE    PROTESTANT   THEORY. 

for  the  remission  of  past  sins,"  and  immersion  oi  a  proper  sub 
ject  "is  the  only  apostolic  or  Christian  baptism."  Putting 
these  two  propositions  together,  and  drawing  therefrom  the  in- 
evitable conclusion,  the  Church  that  practises  sprinkling  and 
infant  baptism,  has  no  baptism,  according  to  Mr.  Campbell,  and 
her  members  who  have  been  thus  sprinkled,  no  remission  of  past 
sins.  How  such  could  be  saved,  or  how,  consistent  with  his 
view,  he  could  call  such  a  Church  either  the  true  Church,  or 
even  a  part  of  it,  I  am  not  able  to  perceive.  And  as  the  over- 
whelming majority  of  Protestant  sects  were  in  this  condition, 
those  left  as  parts  of  the  true  Church  were  certainly  few,  com- 
paratively. And  although  Mr.  C.  did  permit  Dr.  Fishback  to 
hold  the  negative  of  the  proposition  that  "  baptism  is  for  the 
remission  of  past  sins,"  as  matter  of  opinion,  he  never,  so  far  as 
I  am  advised,  tolerated  the  difference  in  the  mode.  What  sort 
of  Christians  were  they,  in  Mr.  Campbell's  view,  who  had  never 
been  baptized  ?  and  whose  past  sins  were  never  remitted  ? 
And  what  sort  of  a  Church  was  it,  that  was  entirely  composed 
of  the  unbaptized?  the  unwashed?  the  unregenerate?  And 
where  was  Mr.  C.'s  true  Church — baptizing  by  immersion — be- 
fore the  Reformation  ?  Did  all  those  he  claimed  as  the  true 
Church,  baptize  by  immersion  ?  If  they  did  not,  then  they  had 
no  baptism,  under  his  theory.  And  the  Paulicians,  who  denied 
baptism,  were  they  the  true  Church  ? 

§  16.  Dr.  Springes  theory  of  Protestant  union. 

In  reference  to  the  views  of  Protestants,  Dr.  Spring  insists 
"  that  there  is  a  remarkable  uniformity  in  the  views  of  Protes- 
tants on  the  great  and  fundamental  doctrines  of  Christianity. 
The  thirty-nine  articles  of  the  Church  of  England — the  confes- 
sion of  faith  of  the  Assembly  of  Divines  at  Westminster — the 
Savoy  Confession,  and  the  symbols  of  the  Reformed  churches  in 
Holland  and  France,  as  well  as  the  published  works  of  the  con- 
tinental, English,  Scotch,  and  Dutch  Reformers,  and  their  fol- 
lowers, in  this  and  other  countries,  where  the  Reformed  religion 
obtains,  present  a  coincidence  of  views,  with  which,  for  its  ex- 
tent arid  importance,  the  boasted  uniformity  of  Rome  furnishes 
no  comparison."  "  The  unity  of  the  Papal  Church  is  a  unity 
of  the  most  jarring  materials."  (Dissertation  60,  63.) 


RESULTS    OF   THE   PROTESTANT   THEORY,  509 

In  the  Westminster  Confession  referred  to  by  Dr.  Spring, 
and  drawn  up  by  the  Assembly  of  Divines  at  Westminster,  in 
1647,  I  find  the  following  articles: 

"  To  these  (church  officers)  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  are  committed,  by  virtue  whereof  they  have  power  to 
retain  and  remit  sins,  to  snut  the  kingdom  against  the  impeni- 
tent, both  by  the  word  and  censure  ;  and  to  open  it  unto  peni- 
tent sinners  by  the  ministry  of  the  Gospel,  and  absolutions 
from  censures,  as  occasion  shall  require."  (Chap,  xxx.,  art.  ii.) 

"  He  (the  civil  magistrate)  hath  authority,  and  it  is  his  duty, 
to  take  order,  that  unity  and  peace  be  preserved  in  the  Church, 
that  the  truth  of  God  be  kept  pure  and  entire,  that  all  blas- 
phemies and  heresies  be  suppressed,  all  corruptions  and  abuses 
in  worship  and  discipline  prevented  or  reformed,  and  all  the  or- 
dinances of  God  duly  settled,  administered,  and  observed.  For 
the  better  effecting  whereof,  he  hath  power  to  call  Synods,  to 
be  present  at  them,  and  to  provide  that  whatever  is  transacted 
in  them,  be  according  to  the  mind  of  God."  (Chap,  xx.,  sec.  3.) 

These  extracts  are  given,  not  for  the  purpose  of  showing 
that  the  Presbyterians  in  the  United  States  hold  these  tenets, 
(for  they,  in  a  General  Assembly,  held  about  the  year  1783, 
rejected  these  articles,)  but  to  show  what  that  "remarkable 
umlormity"  was  which  was  spoken  of  by  Dr.  Spring. 

In  reference,  then,  to  the  symbols  of  the  Reformed  Churches, 
to  which  the  Doctor  refers,  it  will  be  seen  that  they  were  made 
by  the  Lutherans  and  Calvinists.  As  to  the  Calvinism  of  the 
thirty-nine  articles,  there  could  be  no  doubt.*  It  has  long  been 
said  truly,  that  the  Church  of  England  had  a  Calvinistic  creed 
and  an  Arminian  clergy.  (See  Milner's  End  Con.,  Let.  ix.)  It 
will  also  be  seen,  that  these  confessions  were  generally  made  m 
the  first  fifty  years  after  the  dawn  of  the  alleged  Reformation, 
and  before  the  Protestants  were  divided  and  subdivided  into  so 
many  parties.  Besides,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  differences  be- 
tween Lutherans  and  Calvinists  were  either  most  material,  or 

*  Boswell  states  that  he  himself  asserted  that  the  Presbyterian  "  Confession 
of  Faith  and  the  thirty-nine  articles  contained  the  same  points,  even  the  doctrine 
of  predestination."  To  which  Dr.  Johnson  replied:  "Why,  yes,  sir;  predesti- 
nation was  a  part  of  the  clamor  of  the  times,  so  it  is  mentioned  in  our  articles, 
but  with  as  little  positiveness  as  could  be."  (Boswell's  Life  of  Johnson.) 


510  RESULTS    OF   THE    PROTESTANT    THEORY. 

they  themselves  were  mistaken  in  considering  them  so.  So,  it 
will  be  seen  that  the  Westminster  divines  thought  it  so  impor- 
tant "  that  the  truth  of  God  he  kept  pure  and  entire,"  that  they 
held  that  the  civil  magistrate  had  power  to  "call  synods,  to  be 
present  at  them,  and  to  provide  that  whatever  is  transacted  in 
them,  be  according  to  the  mind  of  God."  In  their  theory  they 
placed  the  civil  magistrate  above  the  Synod  in  reference  to  the 
mind  of  God. 

But  as  to  the  materiality  of  these  differences  among  Prot- 
estants, and  as  to  the  statement  of  Dr.  S.  in  substance,  that 
there  is  more  uniformity  among  Protestants  than  among  Catho- 
lics, the  learned  divine  himself  has  saved  me  the  labor  of  any 
further  examination,  by  his  own  clear  and  distinct  admissions. 
As  a  Calvinistic  minister,  in  the  doctrinal  portion  of  his  sermon 
will  often  insist  upon  the  stern  tenets  of  predestination,  election, 
and  final  perseverance ;  and  yet,  in  the  close  of  his  discourse, 
when  he  comes  to  the  last  exhortation,  will  generally  urge  his 
brethren  to  do  their  duty,  and  persevere  in  well-doing,  as  if  he 
did  not  believe  in  the  doctrines  just  taught ;  so,  the  learned 
divine,  after  having  insisted,  in  one  portion  of  his  Dissertation, 
that  Protestants  were  more  united  than  Catholics,  towards  its 
close  says : 

"  Nothing  has  given  Rome  so  much  the  advantage  as  the 
disunion  of  Protestants.  And  nothing,  under  the  favor  of  Al- 
mighty God,  would  be  so  ominous  of  her  overthrow  as  their 
cordial  union  in  the  great  truths  of  the  Gospel,  and  the  love  of 
the  Spirit."  (Dis.  100.) 

I  confess  I  could  not  put  the  different  positions  of  the  learned 
author  together.  I  could  not  understand  how  "  Rome  "  could 
have  "  so  much  the  advantage  "  in  consequence  of  the  "  disunion 
of  Protestants"  in  regard  to  "  the  great  truths  of  the  Gosjpel," 
if  it  were  true,  as  he  alleged,  that  Rome  was  still  more  divided 
— that  her  "  unity  is  a  unity  of  the  most  jarring  materials." 
There  appeared  to  me  to  be  something  quite  "jarring  "  in  these 
different  positions. 

§  17.  Reflections. 

In  connection  with  this  subject,  Dr.  Spring  assumed  that 
"  the  man  who  implicitly  receives  the  Scriptures  as  the  infallible 


RESULTS    OF    TUE    PROTESTANT    THEORY.  511 

rule  of  faith,  cannot  doubt  whether  any  of  his  religious  opinions 
are  true."  (Dis.  59.) 

After  all  the  confusion  that  has  been  thrown  over  this  sub- 
ject by  loose  and  uncertain  language,  arising  from  confused 
thought,  or  from  a  desire  to  avoid  a  difficulty,  nothing  can,  it 
occurs  to  me,  be  plainer  than  this ;  that  the  Protestant  in- 
quirer, under  his  rule,  must  be  certain  of  two  points  before  he 
can  be  certain  that  he  is  right : 

1.  He  must  be  certain  as  to  the  identity  of  the  code — he 
must  know  that  the  Bible  is  the  written,  and  only,  Word  of 
God. 

2.  He  must  know  that  he  has  correctly  construed  it. 

If  he  does  not  know  both  these  points  with  certainty,  he 
does  not  know  his  faith  with  certainty.  How  then  can  it  be 
true,  as  asserted  by  Dr.  Spring,  that  "  the  man  who  implicitly 
receives  the  Scriptures  as  the  infallible  rule  of  faith,  CANNOT 

DOUBT  WHETHER    ANY    OF    HIS    RELIGIOUS  OPINIONS    ARE   TRUE?" 

Does  the  learned  divine  mean  to  assert  the  proposition,  that  he 
who  so  implicitly  receives  the  Scriptures  cannot  misconstrue 
them  ?  Or  does  he  mean  to  say,  that  while  he  does  so  misconstrue 
them,  that  the  simple  fact  of  his  so  receiving  the  Bible,  will 
make  him  certain,  even  while  he  is  in  the  wrong?  Or  does  he 
mean  to  take  the  clean,  neat  position,  that,  while  all  Protestants 
profess  to  receive  implicitly  the  Scriptures  as  their  infallible 
rule  of  faith,  they  only  so  receive  them  who  properly  construe 
them  f  And  if  so,  does  he  mean  then  to  say,  that  all  Protestant 
sects  but  one,  do  not  so  receive  them  ?  Or  does  he  mean  to 
admit,  that  while  numbers,  or  even  the  majority  of  each  sect,  so 
receive  the  Bible,  and  yet  give  it  such  discordant  constructions, 
they  cannot  still  doubt  whether  any  of  their  religious  opinions 
are  true  ?  In  other  words,  that  the  simple  fact  of  so  receiving 
the  Scriptures  is,  in  and  of  itself,  efficient  to  remove  all  doubt, 
from  the  minds  of  all  those  holders  of  opinions  so  contradictory  ? 
As  if  the  fact  that  twenty  different  lawyers  all  agreed  as  to  the 
indentity  of  the  statutes,  would  make  each  one  certain  that  his 
own  construction  of  them  was  right,  when  different  from  that 
of  each  of  the  other  nineteen. 

But  if  the  position  be  true,  that  such  a  reception  of  the 
Bible  is  efficient  to  produce  such  certain  conviction,  is  it  not 


512  BESULTS    OF    THE    PROTESTANT    THEORY. 

clear  that  it  does  so  without  reason  and  against  the  truth  ? 
What  sort  of  a  rule  is  that  which  produces  this  fatal  repose, 
while  believing  the  most  contradictory  tenets,  and  holding  the 
most  opposite  opinions  ?  "  There  is  a  way  which  seemeth  to  a 
man  right,  but  the  end  thereof  is  death." 

And  I  cannot  understand  the  proposition  in  any  other  sense. 
The  language  is  plain,  clear,  and  certain.  If  a  man  implicitly 
receives  the  Scriptures,  he  cannot  doubt  whether  any  of  his  re- 
ligious opinions  are  true,  whatever  those  opinions  may  be. 
This  is  but  another  struggle  to  find  a  substitute  for  the  Catholic 
certainty.  As  the  same  learned  divine  had  before  said,  "  The 
human  mind  reluctantly  rests  short  of  certainty.  Indeed,  with- 
out this  it  does  not  rest  at  all,"  he  was  bound  to  propose 
some  rule  which  would  produce  this  certainty,  or  leave  his 
readers  in  the  dark. 

When  I  first  read  the  Dissertation  of  Dr.  Spring  upon  the 
Rule  of  Faith,  I  was  a  Protestant.  His  statement  that  the  hu- 
man mind  does  not  rest  at  all  without  certainty,  I  could  not  but 
admit  as  unequivocally  true.  But  the  rule  he  gave  me  to  attain 
it  gave  rise  to  the  most  serious  reflections.  After  examination 
and  consideration,  I  became  satisfied  that  his  position  was  fatally 
erroneous  in  one  of  two  particulars  ;  namely :  either  it  could  not 
produce  that  certainty ;  or  if  it  did,  then  this  certainty  was  not 
founded  upon  reason  or  truth,  but  was  a  mere  temporary  cer- 
tainty, that  might  do  to  live  upon,  but  would  never  do  to  die  by. 

While  engaged  in  this  examination,  and  during  its  progress, 
my  reflections  ran  substantially  in  this  way  : 

"  All  Protestants  profess  to  receive  the  Bible  implicitly,  as 
Dr.  S.  requires  :  and  yet  I  have  no  doubt  it  is  true,  as  he  states, 
that 

"  Great  multitudes,  who  have  been  religiously  educated,  and 
more  who  have  not  been  so,  while  they  have  a  prevailing  belief 
that  the  Scriptures  are  a  divine  revelation,  have  by  no  means 
the  conviction  of  certainty  on  this  great  subject."  But  while  I 
must  believe  this,  I  am  also  compelled  to  believe  that  a  large 
portion  of  the  members  of  the  various  Protestant  parties  are  sin- 
cere, and  do  implicitly  receive  the  Scriptures,  as  the  rule  of  Dr. 
S.  requires.  And  yet,  while  they  do  so  receive  i£,  they  unequiv- 
ocally disagree  in  its  interpretation,  and  hold  the  most  opposite 


RESULTS   OP    THE   PROTESTANT   THEORY.  513 

doctrines.  And  although  Dr.  S.  speaks  of  a  remarkable  uni- 
formity in  their  views,  where  can  this  REMARKABLE  uniformity 
be  found  ?  He  has,  indeed,  referred  me  to  the  early  creeds, 
drawn  up  mostly  within  the  first  fifty  years  of  the  alleged  Ref- 
ormation, by  only  two  parties  of  Protestants,  Lutherans  and 
Calvinists,  and  before  they  had  divided  into  so  great  a  number 
of  sects  as  now  exist ;  and  even  in  these  creeds  the  discrepan- 
cies were  great  and  manifest,  and  were  held  material  by  the 
parties  themselves,  at  the  time  the  creeds  were  made.  The 
Lutherans  held  the  Sacramentarians  as  heretics,  heathens,  and 
publicans,  and  not  as  brethren  of  the  same  Church.  And  the 
Calvinists  so  held  the  Lutherans  for  many  years,  and  then  only 
permitted  them  to  communion  about  the  time  the  theory  vf  an 
invisible  Church  was  invented.  And  when  I  look  into  their 
creeds,  these  discordant  views  are  held  as  doctrines  of  ,Vm}> 
ture  /  and  there  is  no  marked  distinction  in  each  creed  to  show* 
where  the  fundamental  doctrines  end,  and  the  indifferent  opin- 
ions begin.  And  if  I  consider  all  the  points  of  difference  be- 
tween Protestants,  or  between  the  principal  sects,  as  matters 
indifferent,  and  this  contrary  to  their  own  creeds,  how  much  will 
there  be  left  of  fundamental  Christianity  ?  For  instance,  can  1 
say  a  man  has  free  will,  or  that  he  has  it  not  ? — or  that  he  will 
certainly  persevere  because  predestinated,  or  that  he  may  fall — 
that  Christ  is  really  present  in  the  Eucharist,  or  that  He  is  not 
— that  immersion  alone  is  baptism,  or  that  it  is  not — that  infant 
baptism  is  valid,  or  that  it  is  void — and  so  of  every  other  differ 
ence,  and  yet  all  these  views  be  held  as  matters  indifferent  f 
Can  I  say  that  Christ  has  made  no  revelation  upon  these  points 
of  difference  ?  And  if  I  say  He  has,  by  what  sort  of  logic  can  I 
say  His  revelation  is  unimportant  ?  Why  revealed,  if  not  to  be 
believed  f  And  how  can  a  mere  fallible  interpreter  mark  the 
line  that  separates  the  revealed  fundamental,  from  revealed, 
but  immaterial,  doctrines  ?  If,  then,  these  various  sects  differ 
in  fundamental  doctrines,  it  is  clear  they  cannot  all  be  right.  It 
is  equally  plain  they  cannot  form  parts  of  the  true  visible  Church. 
She  ever  must  be  a  unit,  with  the  same  faith,  and  the  same  gov- 
ernment. And  if^  on  the  contrary,  these  sects  agree  in  funda- 
mentals as  asserted,  then  why  do  they  not  unite  ?  What  ex- 
cuse can  be  given  for  ruinous  divisions,  so  much  deplored  by 
45 


RESULTS    OF    THE    PROTESTANT    THEORY. 

Dr.  Spring  himself,  as  well  as  other  Protestants,  when  they  only 
differ  about  trifles  ?  Or  is  it  in  the  wise  and  irrevocable  pur- 
pose of  the  Great  Redeemer,  that  division  and  discord  should 
be  written,  in  letters  of  living  light,  upon  the  front  of  every 
sect  that  has  ever  separated  from  that  Church  which  holds  the 
governing  principle  of  authority,  from  the  beginning  of  Chris- 
tianity even  to  the  present  time  ? 

And  despite  the  statement  of  Dr.  Spring,  is  it  not  palpable 
that,  while  Protestants  have  had  great  difficulty  in  implicitly  re- 
ceiving the  Scriptures,  they  have  had  still  greater  difficulty  in 
their  construction,  as  the  five  hundred  sects  in  Protestant  Chris- 
tendom do  most  abundantly  show  ?  Then,  under  the  Protestant 
fundamental  rule,  I  must  construe  the  Bible  for  myself.  God, 
according  to  the  rule,  has  made  my  mind  the  only  tribunal.  If 
I  trust  to  the  opinions  of  others,  and  believe  upon  their  author- 
ity, while  my  own  mind  does  not  itself  understand  the  proof, 
then  I  violate  the  will,  of  God,  and  become  subordinate  to  an 
independent  equal.  I  can,  therefore,  take  nothing  upon  author- 
ity. I  must  examine,  and  be  myself  convinced  in  reference  to 
each  particular  point.  And  who  am  I  ?  I  am  a  mere  fallible 
man.  My  judgment  and  my  opinion  I  cannot  rely  upon,  any 
more  than  upon  the  judgment  and  opinion  of  any  other  man  of 
the  same  sincerity,  diligence,  opportunity,  and  capacity.  It  is 
true,  the  rule  itself  compels  me  to  rely  upon  myself;  but  so  far 
as  correctness  and  certainty  of  construction  are  concerned,  my 
chance  to  be  right  would  be  just  as  great  in  following  the  judg- 
ment of  another  person.  The  fact  that  it  is  my  opinion,  ought 
not  to  give  me  any  more  assurance  of  its  truth,  than  the  fact 
that  it  is  the  opinion  of  another  individual.  Unless  I  deceive 
myself  by  self-love  and  personal  vanity,  this  must  be  true.  And 
if  I  should  so  deceive  myself,  would  that  deceive  the  great  and 
just  Judge  ?  And  what  have  I  to  gain  by  self-delusion  but  my 
own  ruin? 

But  I  am  not  only  thrown  upon  my  own  judgment  by  the 
Protestant  rule  itself,  but  by  another  overwhelming  considera- 
tion. For  if  I  adopt  the  creed  of  any  one  Protestant  sect,  (and 
I  cannot  adopt  any  two  or  more  of  them,)  I  find  the  overwhelm- 
ing majority,  even  of  Protestants,  against  me.  And  if  I  consult 
all  the  sects  that  have  separated  from  the  Church  of  Rome,  from 


RESULTS    OF   THE    PR(  TESTANT    THEORY.  515 

the  days  of  Simon  Magus  to  those  of  Luther,  I  find  each  and 
every  one,  without  one  solitary  exception,  against  me.  And  when 
I  go  to  the  Catholic  Church,  I  find  the  overwhelming  majority 
of  all  professed  Christians,  saints,  and  martyrs,  of  every  age  in 
her  exclusive  communion — and  they  too  are  all  against  me. 

I  am,  then,  invincibly  thrown  back  upon  my  own  individual 
fallible  judgment ;  for  if  I  rely  upon  authority  at  all,  under  the 
Protestant  rule,  which  admits  of  no  infallibility,  then  I  must 
take  the  voice  of  the  majority,  and  I  cannot,  upon  any  principle 
.of  common  sense,  prefer  the  authority  of  one,  to  that  often  per- 
sons, all  equals.  I  must  stand  unsupported,  "  solitary  and 
alone."  When  I  heretofore  looked  into  the  Bible,  my  construc- 
tion satisfied  me  that  Mr.  Campbell  was  right.  I  was  always 
told  it  was  a  plain  book,  easily  understood.  But  after  all,  I 
often  thought  I  could  see  some  things  hard  to  be  understood, 
and  yet  that  must  be  understood.  And  whether  other  Protes- 
tants find  these  hard  things  to  understand  or  not,  the  fact  is  pal- 
pable, that  they  are  always  explaining  and  re-explaining  this  plain 
Bible  ;  and  what  is  still  more  surprising,  they  can  never  explain 
it  alike.  They  seem  to  explain  the  meaning  quite  away.  And  the 
more  loudly  and  the  more  unanimously  all  Protestants  continue 
to  assert  that  the  Bible  is  a  very  plain  book,  and  easily  under- 
stood, the  more  utterly  at  a  loss  I  am  to  understand  why  it  is 
they  differ  so  much  about  so  plain  a  matter  as  the  construction 
of  so  plain  a  book.  There  must  be  some  deep,  fundamental,  and 
efficient  reason  for  this.  There  is  a  great  and  radical  wrong 
somewhere.  Is  it  because  Protestants  are  too  learned  ?  Or  is 
it  because  they  study  the  Bible  too  much  ? 

It  is  indeed  true,  that  all  Protestant  writers  I  have  ever 
read,  charge  the  Catholic  Church  with  holding  a  very  erroneous 
maxim  upon  this  subject — Dr.  Spring,  Mr.  Campbell,  and  others 
— the  former  of  whom  says  :  "  Never  was  there  a  more  palpable 
error  than  the  maxim  of  the  Roman  Church,  that  '  ignorance  is 
the  mother  of  devotion.'  "  (Dis.  66.) 

But  if  I  understand  the  language  of  Dr.  S.,  he  does  attempt 
to  show  that  the  maxim  is,  in  fact,  true,  as  regards  Protestants ; 
for  he  says : 

"  Men  of  common  honesty  and  common  discernment  cannot 
fell  to  understand  the  great  and  fundamental  truths  God  has  re< 


51  #  RESULTS   OF   THE   PROTESTANT   THEORY. 

vealed.  They  do  understand  them,  and  quite  as  well  as  the 
more  learned  and  philosophizing."  By  this  I  understand  the 
Dr.  to  put  the  two  classes  upon  an  equality.  But  when  he  comes 
to  speak  of  the  trial  of  the  faith  of  men,  in  which  so  many  are 
wrecked  for  eternity,  he  says  : 

"  Most  men,  at  one  period  of  life  or  another,  and  especially 
educated  men,  pass  through  this  fiery  ordeal,  &c.  *  *  *  a 
trial  in  which  the  faith  and  hopes  of  so  many  are  consumed," 
&c.  (Dis.  37,  57.) 

And  by  this  I  understand  him  to  mean  distinctly,  that  edu- 
cated men,  especially,  are  more  exposed  to  this  severe  trial,  and 
more  of  them  are  lost,  in  proportion  to  numbers,  than  among 
those  of  "  common  honesty  and  discernment."  And  is  not  this 
giving  the  advantage,  in  point  of  fact,  to  the  uneducated,  and 
saying,  in  substance,  "  ignorance  is  the  mother  of  devotion  " 
among  Protestants  ? 

And  so  Mr.  Campbell,  speaking  of  that  passage,  "  there  are 
some  things  hard  to  be  understood,"  says : 

"  Philosophers,  as  they  love  to  be  called,  are  generally  the 
most  unteachable,  and  the  greatest  wresters  and  perverters  of 
the  Scripture.  Peter  had  those  too  wise  to  learn  in  his  eye, 
when  he  speaks  of  wresting  the  Scriptures ;  and  not  the  simple, 
honest,  and  unassuming  laity."  (Debate  C.  &  P.,  266.) 

Now  if  I  understand  Mr.  C.,  he  does  say  that,  in  point  of 
fact,  there  is  more  religious  error  among  'the  learned  than 
among  the  "  simple,  honest,  and  unassuming  laity."  And  is  not 
this  making  "  ignorance  the  mother  of  devotion  "  among  Prot- 
estants ?  * 

But  I  find  this  charge  denied  by  Catholic  writers.  And,  in- 
deed,  I  cannot  see  how  it  can  be  found  in  the  Catholic  theory. 
That  system  assumes  to  put  them  all  upon  an  equality.  It  has 

*  That  I  was  right  in  my  construction  of  Mr.  C.'s  language  appears  clear 
from  a  passage  in  his  debate  with  Mr.  Rice,  page  905. 

"  The  land  is  full  of  infidelity.  Your  schools,  your  colleges,  are  full  of  skep- 
ticism. The  great  majority  of  your  educated  men  are  infidels." 

Now  Mr.  C.  does  distinctly  state,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  that  Skepticism  and  In- 
fidelity are  mostly  found  in  the  institutions  of  learning,  and  among  educated  men, 
while  Christianity  is  best  understood  by  the  "  simple,  honest,  and  unassuming 
laity." 


RESULTS    OF   THE    PROTESTANT   THEORY.  517 

the  same  tribunal  to  construe  for  all ;  and  it  equally  requires 
implicit  submission  from  all.  The  poor  and  the  rich,  the  high 
and  the  low,  the  learned  and  the  unlearned,  are  each  and  all 
elevated  to  the  same  sublime  faith — the  same  exact  construction 
of  the  law.  There  is  practical  justice,  beauty,  reason,  and  logic 
in  this  theory : 

"  All  states  can  reach  it,  and  all. heads  conceive." 

I  am  but  a  man.  I  am  no  wiser  or  better  than  others.  I 
cannot  reasonably  have  any  more  confidence  in  my  individual 
judgment  and  construction  of  the  Scriptures,  than  I  can  in  those 
of  any  other  man  of  equal  capacity,  sincerity,  and  means  of  in- 
formation. Certainty  I  must  have,  or  I  cannot  rest.  Where 
then  can  I  find  it  ? 

"  Plant  of  celestial  seed— if  dropt  below, 
Say  in  what  *  blessed '  soil  thou  deign'st  to  grow." 

Shall  I  be  compelled  to  seek  elsewhere  than  in  any  Protes- 
tant communion  for  that  consistency,  system,  and  unity,  that  did 
unquestionably  dwell  in  the  Church  of  Old  ?  Must  I  be  driven, 
at  last,  into  the  alleged  "  Man  of  Sin  " — the  "  Great  Apostasy  " 
— the  best-abused  Church  in  the  world  ?  That  Church  against 
which  charges  enough,  and  grievous,  are  made,  if  true,  to  sink  a 
universe  ?  The  alleged  false — the  base — the  corrupt — the  ve- 
nal— the  cruel — the  apostate  Church  ?  The  oldest,  and  yet  the 
most  unpopular — the  most  hated — the  most  suspected — the  most 
despised— of  all  the  Churches  of  Christendom  ?  Is  it  possible 
that  I  must  go  there  to  find  that  faith,  and  that  certainty,  that 
will  satisfy  a  hungry,  but  honest  soul  ?  How  can  I  endure  the 
thought  of  confessing  my  sins  to  a  mere  man  ?  My  pride  says  I 
cannot,  but  grace  whispers  "  you  caw,  if  truth  requires  you." 
And  so  I  will,  if  it  is  right.  I  resolve  to  follow  truth,  wherever 
it  may  lead  me.  There's  reason  and  sense  in  truth.  There's 
logic  and  honesty  in  it.  There  is  certainty,  and  there  is  consist- 
ency in  it.  Let  me  only  know  it.  If  it  can  be  found  in  the 
Old  Church,  I  go  there.  The  consequences  I  will  take.  If  such 
a  step  subjects  me  to  censure,  I  will  bear  it.  I  would  rather 
suffer  in  this  world  than  in  the  next.  It  may  subject  me  tc 
many  evils  for  a  long  time, 

"  if  long  in  life  can  be." 


518  RESULTS    OF   THE    PROTESTANT   THEORY. 

But  what  of  that  ?  Unlimited  space  is  wider  than  the  world, 
and  eternity  longer  than  life.  Heaven,  and  all  that  Heaven 
means,  are  worth  a  struggle — a  sublime  and  manly  struggle. 
Was  Christianity  ever  designed  to  be  popular  with  the  mass  of 
evil  in  this  world  ?  Does  it  indulge  men's  passions  ?  Does  it 
pamper  pride  ?  Does  it  flatter  men  in  any  way  ?  Oh  !  no.  It 
could  never  have  cost  so  much  if  it  did.  He  who  wins  Heaven, 
must  struggle.  He  must  be  prepared  to  resist  the  onset  of 
earth.  He  must  expect  its  dire  opposition.  He  must  fight. 

But  are  those  manifold  charges  against  the  Old  Church  true  ? 
If  so,  she  has  been  a  hoary-headed  sinner  for  many  a  long  and 
weary  century.  Who  can  then  estimate  the  evil  she  has  done  ? 
False  and  apostate  from  her  early  faith  —recreant  to  the  heav- 
enly trust  of  her  Lord — she  has  tilled  the  world  with  error  and 
misery.  If  this  be  true,  she  ought  to  be  despised. 

But  it  may  be  that  these  charges  are  untrue.  Her  faith, 
after  all  this  mighty  mass  of  acrimonious  and  passionate  accusa- 
tion, may  be  the  pure  and  holy  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints. 
She  has  always,  and  at  all  times,  and  in  all  places,  for  more  than 
fifteen  hundred  years,  as  conceded  by  many  of  her  enemies, 
claimed  it  to  be  true.  It  may  be  that  her  very  firmness  in  re- 
sisting all  ambitious  novelties,  has  brought  upon  her  the  unceas- 
ing opposition  of  all  sectaries,  in  every  age  and  clime,  of  what- 
ever tenets  and  character;  and  her  very  consistency,  her  beauty, 
and  invincible  courage,  may  have  brought  against  her  all  the 
malice  and  ridicule  of  all  infidels,  past  or  present.  Who  knows  ? 
If  we  concede  that  she  is  the  true  Church,  for  the  sake  of  the 
argument  only,  (and  she  may  be  such,  as  the  thing  is  possible,) 
then  would  not  the  bitter  and  relentless  opposition  of  all  the 
proud,  the  vain,  the  ambitious,  be  levelled  against  her  ?  Would 
not  every  demagogue  in  religion — every  wild  enthusiast — every 
man  of  a  cold,  suspicious  disposition — every  self-willed  individual, 
,  be  against  her  ?  Did  not  our  Lord  say,  Woe  unto  you  when 
all  men  speak  well  of  you  :  for  so  did  their  fathers  of  the  false 
orophets  ? 

There  is  something  remarkable  in  the  history  of  this  venera- 
ole  Old  Church,  even  as  stated  by  her  enemies.  Mr.  Campbell 
gays  she  "  is  older  than  any  other  sect  now  existing."  She  is 
older  !  Her  continued  existence  for  so  long  a  period,  under  this 


RESULTS    OF   THE   PROTESTANT   THEORY.  519 

alleged  accumulation  of  errors,  is  one  of  the  most  remarkable 
circumstances  in  the  world's  history.  And  the  more  errors  are 
charged  upon  her,  and  the  more  bitterness  there  is  displayed  in 
attempting  to  sustain  these  allegations,  the  more  difficult  it  is  to 
account  for  this  most  remarkable  moral  phenomenon.  If,  in- 
deed, she  be  the  true  Church,  then  her  unfailing  existence  is 
easily  accounted  for ;  because  the  promises  of  that  poor,  despised 
Nazarene  never  yet  did  fail.  And  slander  never  did  make  a 
modest  charge — malice  always  lays  it  on  thicker  and  thicker — 
and  hatred  forever  overshoots  the  mark.  And  it  seems  as  if 
God,  in  His  infinite  wisdom  and  mercy,  has  given  the  true 
Church  this  protection. 

I  will,  then,  look  into  these  charges  calmly  and  dispassion- 
ately. I  will  endeavor  to  make  a  fair  and  just  allowance  for  in 
dividual  human  frailty.  I  will  judge  the  past  by  the  circum- 
stances existing  in  the  past.  I  will  try  to  place  myself  back  in 
the  olden  time.  I  will  interrogate  the  distant  ages  gone  by.  I 
will  commune  with  the  venerable  departed.  I  will  judge  them 
by  that  charity  wherewith  I  wish  to  be  judged.  At  least  so  far 
as  my  poor  abilities  will  allow.  I  will  then  make  up  my  mind, 
and  upon  that  conviction  I  will  act.  I  will  not  halt  between  two 
opinions.  My  face  is  set  for  the  truth,  and  when  I  find,  I  mean 
to  follow  it. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

TRAN8UB8TANTIATION. 

§  1.  There  were  two  main  points  in  the  discourse  of  our  Lord. 

THE  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence,  and  the  Protes- 
tant doctrine  of  the  real  absence  of  the  body  of  Christ  in  the 
Lord's  Supper,  are  as  much  opposed  to  each  other  as  any  two 
precise  opposites  can  possibly  be  imagined.  There  can  be  no 
medium  between  the  two — no  possible  middle  ground.  Christ 
is  either  present  or  absent.  If  present,  the  Catholic  is  right — if 
absent,  then  the  Protestant  is  right. 

If  the  Catholic  doctrine  be  true,  it  is  a  tender,  sublime,  and 
awful  dogma — if  false,  a  monstrous  invention — a  pure  fabrica- 
tion. If  not  in  the  Church  originally,  and  not  among  the  doc- 
trines once  delivered,  it  must  have  been  introduced  as  a  whole, 
and  not  in  piecemeal.  There  could,  from  the  very  nature  and 
reason  of  the  thing,  have  been  no  middle  doctrine — no  shades 
of  opinion,  gradually  preparing  the  minds  of  Christians  for  the 
reception  of  this  great  perversion  of  the  true  faith.  It  was  one 
bold  leap  from  the  well-understood  and  generally  received  doc- 
trine of  the  real  absence,  to  that  opposite,  so  hard  to  flesh  and 
blood,  the  Heal  Presence. 

The  first  portion  of  Scripture  relied  upon  by  the  Catholic,  is 
found  in  that  wonderful  chapter,  the  sixth  of  St.  John.  The 
first  twenty-five  verses  are  taken  up  in  giving  a  history  of  the 
stupendous  miracle  of  Christ  in  feeding  the  multitude,  and  His 
subsequent  occupations  until  the  next  day.  On  the  second  day, 
the  crowd  again  came  around  Him,  and  His  discourse  to  them 
commences  at  the  26th  verse,  and  extends  to  the  close  of  this 
long  chapter. 

It  was  the  practice  with  our  Lord  and  His  apostles  to  suit 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION.  52 1 

their  discourses  to  the  circumstances  in  which  they  were  placed.* 
The  Jews  had  witnessed  the  miracle  of  feeding  the  five  thou- 
sand ;  and  if  our  Lord  ever  intended  to  promise  to  give  His 
body  and  blood  to  His  followers,  there  is  no  time  mentioned  in 
the  history  of  His  labors  more  appropriate  than  the  one  men 
tioned  in  this  chapter. 

In  reference  to  the  sense  of  this  chapter,  most  Protestants 
insist  that  it  relates  to  faith  in  Christ,  though  several  distin 
guished  writers,  as  Calixtus,  Hackspan,  and  Groenenburg,  out 
of  England,  and  Dr.  Jeremy  Taylor  and  Dr.  Sherlock  of  Eng- 
land, concede  that  the  latter  portion  relates  to  the  Eucharist, 
though  they  deny  the  literal  sense.  Catholic  writers  contend 
that  about  the  48th  verse  the  Saviour  passes  to  another  topic, 
by  a  very  easy  and  natural  transition.  Dr.  Wiseman  has  given 
very  conclusive  reasons  to  prove  that  the  transition  commences 
at  the  48th  verse.  For  myself,  it  seems  to  be  true,  that  the 
transition  not  only  takes  place  at  that  verse,  but  that  both  the 
main  subjects  of  the  discourse  are  clearly  alluded  to  inverse  27. 

The  multitude  who  had  been  fedj  declared,  "this  is  of  a 
truth  the  prophet  that  is  to  come  into  the  world ; "  and  such 
was  their  admiration  of  our  Lord,  that  they  would  have  taken 
Him  by  force,  and  made  Him  a  King.  (14,  15.)  They  seem  to 
have  believed  in  Him  as  one  eminently  competent  to  be  a  tem- 
poral sovereign ;  and  that,  as  the  kingdom  of  the  second  Moses, 
the  Messiah,  was  to  be  a  temporal  kingdom,  it  would  be  one  of 
the  vocations  of  Christ  to  furnish  them  with  food,  and  for  this 
reason  they  sought  Him,  and  not  because  they  saw  the  miracles. 
(26.)  The  Jews  had  a  tradition  among  them,  that  the  Messiah, 
among  other  points  of  resemblance  to  Moses,  was,  like  him,  to 
bring  down  manna  from  heaven.  The  Mildrasch  Coheleth,  or 
exposition  of  Ecclesiastes,  thus  expresses  it :  "  Rabbi  Berechiah 
said,  in  the  name  of  Rabbi  Isaac,  As  the  first  Goel,  (deliverer,) 
so  shall  the  second  be.  The  first  Goel  brought  down  manna, 
as  it  is  written,  '  I  will  cause  bread  to  reign  upon  you  from 
heaven.'  So,  likewise,  will  the  later  Goel  cause  manna  to  de- 
scend." (Cited  Wise.  Lee.  E.,  42.) 

The  existence  of  this  tradition,  and  its  belief  among  the 

*  John  iv.  10;  v.  24  ;  ix.  39 ;  Acts  iii.  6-16. 


522  TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 

Jews,  is  shown  from  the  facts  historically  stated  in  this  chapter 
Theyjirst  followed  Him  into  the  desert,  "'because  they  saw  the 
miracles  which  He  did  on  them  that  were  diseased."  (2.)  Al- 
though they  had  witnessed  these  miracles  on  them  that  were 
diseased,  they  never  once  thought  of  making  Christ  a  King,  un- 
til after  the  miracle  of  the  loaves  and  fishes.  But  upon  witness- 
ing this  peculiar  miracle,  they  seem  at  once  to  have  considered 
Him  as  sent  of  God  as  a  temporal  sovereign,  a  part  of  whose 
vocation  would  be  to  supply  His  people  with  food,  as  God  had 
done,  through  the  ministry  of  Moses,  in  the  wilderness.  All 
the  circumstances  taken  in  connection  with  the  miracle  they 
saw,  were  doubtless  the  reasons  that  induced  them  to  seek  to 
make  Him  a  King,  and  to  take  shipping  and  follow  Him  to 
Capharnaum,  and  not  the  expectation  of  obtaining  another  meal, 
as  some  Protestant  writers  have  supposed.  Such  a  motive 
would  seem  wholly  inadequate  to  produce  such  a  result ;  and 
such  a  position  is  inconsistent  with  the  fact,  that  they  so  ardently 
desired  to  make  Him  a  King. 

This  tradition  is  the  reason  why  the  Jews  referred  to  the 
manna  in  the  31st  verse.  They  ask  Christ  for  a  proof  of  His 
commission,  and  then,  without  the  slightest  seeming  reason,  re- 
fer to  the  manna  in  the  desert.  What  connection  this  matter 
could  have  with  the  question  they  asked,  could  not  well  be  seen 
without  a  knowledge  of  the  existence  of  this  tradition. 

The  Jews,  under  the  influence  of  this  opinion,  and,  no  doubt, 
still  desiring  to  make  Christ  a  King,  that  they  might  be  fed  by 
His  power  and  bounty,  pursued  Him  the  next  day.  Adapting 
His  discourse  to  the  state  of  their  opinions,  (as  St.  Peter  did, 
when  he  told  them  to  repent  and  be  baptized,  without  mention- 
ing faith,  because  they  already  believed,)  it  seemed  that  our 
Lord  had  two  main  points  to  propound :  1.  That  He  was  the 
Son  of  God,  in  whom  they  must  believe.  2.  That  it  was  no 
part  of  His  mission  to  give  them  perishable  food,  but  the  imper- 
ishable food  of  His  own  body  and  blood.  Both  these  points  are 
stated  in  one  verse  and  in  one  sentence.  (27.) 

It  was  natural  and  appropriate  that  our  Lord  should  first  in- 
form the  Jews  that  He  understood  their  views  and  motives, 
and  that  these  were  erroneous,  before  propounding  His  own 
doctrines.  After  telling  them  that  they  sought  him,  not  be- 


TRAtfSUBSTANTIATTON.  523 

cause  they  had  witnessed  the  miracles,  but  because  they  had 
eaten  of  the  loaves  and  fishes,  He  very  naturally,  at  this  place, 
warns  them  not  to  labor  for  that  meat  which  they  so  much  re- 
garded, but  for  that  imperishable  meat  that  He  would  give 
them ;  and  then  confirms  His  power  to  fulfil  His  promise  with 
that  emphatic  expression,  "for  him  hath  God  the  Father 
sealed." 

The  first  point  to  be  discussed  (though  secondly  stated)  was 
the  proposition  that  He  was  the  Son  of  God,  and  commissioned 
by  Him ;  and  that,  as  such,  they  were  to  believe  in  Him.  When 
He  gave  them  sufficient  evidence  of  His  true  character,  they 
were  bound  by  the  plainest  principles  of  right  reason  to  believe 
Him  upon  His  authority  alone,  and  to  receive  every  doctrine 
propounded  by  Him,  however  hard  that  saying  might  be.  The 
only  proper  inquiry  the  Jews  could  make  was  that  which  they 
did  make  in  verse  .30.  That  being  answered  and  proved  by 
what  they  had  seen  and  heard  before  and  at  that  time,  they 
were  bound  to  believe,  without  doubt,  all  that  He  might  require 
them  to  believe.  If  He  was  the  Christ,  then  He  was  legiti- 
mately entitled  to  unlimited  confidence.  And  when  He  per- 
formed the  miracles  before  their  eyes,  He  conclusively  estab- 
lished His  character  and  veracity,  and,  therefore,  His  account 
of  Himself  they  must  receive  as  infallibly  true. 

Our  Lord,  in  verse  27,  does  not  define  what  He  meant  by 
meat  that  should  endure  to  eternal  life,  except  simply  to  state 
its  quality  in  contrast  with  perishable  food.*  He  does  not  state 
it  in  terms  calculated  to  arouse  prejudice  in  the  beginning  of 
His  discourse,  and  thus  close  the  ears  of  His  hearers  against 
His  doctrines.  He  does  not  then  say  in  what  it  shall  consist. 
He  merely  states  the  heads  of  His  discourse  in  such  a  way  as  to 
create  no  prejudice,  and  yet  show  what  two  main  points  would 
come  under  discussion.  The  reader  will  observe,  that  in  verse 
27,  our  Lord  promises  that  He  will  give  this  imperishable  meat, 
and  that  in  verses  51  and  55,  He  says  He  will  give  His  flesh, 
and  that  His  flesh  is  meat  indeed.  In  both  cases  He  speaks  of 
a  future  gift,  which  He  Himself  will  give ;  showing  that  the 
same  thing  is  alluded  to  in  all  these  verses. 

*  Our  Lord  and  his  apostles  were  in  the  habit  of  putting  opposites  in  contrast 
(John  vi.  63 ;  Rom.  vui.  1-14.) 


.524:  TRANSUBSTANTIATTON. 

It  must  be  conceded,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence 
is  a  hard  and  revolting  doctrine  to  flesh  and  blood,  and  espe- 
cially so  to  the  Jews,  as  we  shall  see.  It  was  then  proper  in 
itself  that  Christ  should  select  an  occasion  when  some  miracle, 
or  other  great  event,  would  form  the  proper  introduction  to 
this  unpleasant  topic.  And  not  only  so,  but  an  occasion  when 
the  Jews  were  well  disposed  towards  him.  On  this  occasion 
all  these  circumstances  concurred.  The  Jews,  in  multitudes, 
had  fed  upon  the  miraculous  food  created  by  the  Son  of  Man — 
they  had  hailed  Him  the  day  before  as  a  prophet — in  their  en- 
thusiasm they  had  sought  to  make  Him  a  King,  by  force;  and 
they  followed  Him  beyond  sea,  and  sought  Him  until  they 
found  Him,  and  the  respectful  manner  in  which  they  addressed 
Him,  shows  the  state  of  their  feelings  towards  Him.  It  is  true, 
they  entertained  erroneous  views  and  opinions  in  reference  to 
the  object  of  their  admiration,  but  that  was  the  very  time  to 
correct  these  errors  of  opinion.  In'  justice  to  them,  it  was  the 
opportune  moment.  If  they  could  not  hear  that  hard  saying  at 
this  time,  they  never  could  hear  it.  No  wonder,  then,  that 
those  disciples  who  could  not  hear  that  doctrine  on  this  occa- 
sion, "  walked  no  more  "  with  their  deserted  Lord. 

As  I  take  it,  our  Lord  proceeds,  from  the  29th  to  the  47th 
verses  inclusive,  to  teach  the  great  doctrine,  that  He  is  the  Son 
of  the  Father,  and  the  general  necessity  of  faith  in  Him,  as  such. 
In  answer  to  the  allusion  made  by  the  Jews  to  the  manna,  and 
after  having  previously  told  them,  in  verse  29,  that  the  work  of 
God  was  to  believe  on  Him  whom  He  hath  sent,  He  tells  them 
that  His  Father  giveth  them  the  true  bread  from  heaven,*  and 
then  proceeds  to  define  the  meaning  in  which  He  there  used 
the  word  bread,  by  saying,  "  For  the  bread  of  God  is  he  which 
cometh  down  from  heaven."  "  I  am  the  bread  of  life."  The 
Jews  understood  Him  correctly,  for  they  did  not  inquire  "how 
can  this  man  be  bread  ?  "  but  they  did  say,  "  How  is  it,  then, 
that  he  saith,  I  come  down  from  heaven  ?  "  (42.)  They  disbe- 

*  As  the  meaning  of  words  (literal  and  symbolical)  depends  upon  usage,  the 
figurative  application  of  the  words,  bread  or  food,  to  wisdom  and  doctrines,  waa 
common  among  the  Jews.  This  figure  is  used  in  the  following  passages  :  Is.  iv. 
1,  2;  Jer.  xv,  16;  Amos  viii,  11 ;  Ecc.  xv.  3;  Proverbs  ix.  5;  iv.  17;  Ecc.  xx. 
17,  18. 


TK  AX  SUBSTANTIATION.  525 

lieved  the  assumed  fact,  that  He  came  down  from  heaven,  but 
they  did  not  misunderstand  the  sense  of  His  words. 

It  will  be  seen  that  there  are  several  marked  differences  in 
the  language  of  that  part  of  our  Lord's  discourse,  from  the  29th 
to  the  47th  verses  inclusive,  and  that  from  verses  48  to  58  inclu- 
sive ;  and  these  peculiarities  are  such  as  show  a  change  of 
topic. 

Our  Saviour,  after  having  explicitly  defined  the  word  bread 
as  figurative  of  Himself,  proceeds  to  speak  exclusively  of  faith 
in  the  next  fourteen  verses;  and  it  is  very  remarkable  that  in 
this  part  of  His  discourse,  He  carefully  avoids  the  use  of  the 
phrase  eating  Him,  and  does  not  even  use  the  expression  to  eat 
the  bread  of  life.  This  care  in  avoiding  any  reference  to  eating 
Him,  shows  how  clearly  our  Lord  kept  within  the  limits  of  the 
first  topic.  From  the  moment  that  He  begins  to  use  literal 
terms,  He  proceeds  to  speak  of  His  doctrine  under  the  phrases 
"  cometh  to  me,"  "  believeth  in  me,"  (which  mean  the  same 
thing,)  until  verse  47,  which  is  a  complete  summing  up  of  that 
part  of  His  discourse. 

But  His  language  after  this  is  very  different ;  for  He  not 
only  speaks  of  eating  this  bread,  but  of  eating  His  flesh.  It 
was  not  unusual  with  our  Lord  to  repeat  the  same  thing  a  num- 
ber of  times  in  succession,  and  after  each  repetition,  to  intro- 
duce new  matter.  In  the  tenth  chapter  of  St.  John's  Gospel, 
He  repeats  the  phrase,  "  I  am  the  door."  So,  in  the  fifteenth 
chapter,  the  expression,  "  I  am  the  true  vine,"  and  then  says 
His  Father  is  the  husbandman.  And  again,  "  I  am  the  vine," 
and  then  proceeds  to  say,  "  you  are  the  branches."  So,  in  the 
23d  chapter  of  Matthew,  He  repeats  that  withering  phrase, 
"Woe  unto  you,  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  hypocrites,"  seven  or 
eight  times.  In  the  chapter  under  consideration,  He  says,  "  I 
am  the  bread  of  life,"  (35,)  and  then  proceeds  to  speak  of  faith 
in  Him  as  the  Son  of  God.  Having  summed  up  in  verse  47,  He 
says  again,  "  I  am  the  bread  of  life."  (48.)  He  then  proceeds 
to  state  the  want  of  a  living  principle  in  manna,  (49,)  and  then 
puts  in  strong  contrast  with  it  the  bread  of  life.*  (50.)  And 

*  If  the  Catholic  doctrine  be  true,  how  beautiful  is  the  contrast  between  the 
qualities  of  manna  and  the  flesh  of  our  Lord.  The  Jews  had  a  great  reverence 
for  the  manna,  which  was  a  miraculous  and  literal  food  :  and  if  Christ  intended 


526  TRANS  INSTANTIATION. 

He  repeats  again,  (51,)  in  language  more  emphatic,  "I  am  the 
living  bread,"  and  proceeds  to  introduce  new  matter  in  these 
words :  "  And  the  bread  that  I  will  give  is  my  flesh,  which  1 
will  give  for  the  life  of  the  world." 

Our  Lord,  previous  to  verse  51,  had  asserted,  that  He  was 
the  bread  of  life — that  He  came  down  from  heaven — that  a  man 
may  eat  of  that  bread  and  not  die  ;  and  all  these  propositions 
are  repeated  in  verse  51,  preparatory  to  the  definition  He  was 
about  to  give  of  the  new  sense  in  which  He  used  the  word 
bread,  as  figurative  of  His  real  flesh.  In  verse  32,  He  speaks 
of  the  quality  of  the  bread,  calling  it  the  "  true  bread,"  and  then 
defines  what  it  is  by  saying :  u  For  the  bread  of  God  is  he 
which  cometh  down  from  heaven."  So  here  He  speaks  of  the 
quality  of  the  bread,  (50  and  51,)  and  then  defines  what  it  is  in 
language  of  very  similar  form. 

"  For  the  bread  of  God  is  he  which  "  And  the  bread  that  I  will  give 

cometh  down  from  heaven."  is  my  flesh." 

Now  the  word  bread,  in  both  these  extracts,  is  used  in  a 
figurative  sense,  but  not  in  the  same  figurative  sense.  There 
are  two  separate  and  distinct  definitions  given — the  first,  of 
Christ  as  a  Lawgiver  or  Teacher,  and  the  second,  of  His  real 
flesh.  These  two  definitions  would  be  idle,  if  they  meant  the 
same  thing.  And  if  these  definitions  give  us  different  meanings, 
it  is  clear  that  when  the  second  one  was  given,  there  was  a 
change  of  topic. 

It  will  also  be  observed,  that  in  the  first  definition,  the  pro- 
noun he,  the  nominative  after  the  verb  to  be,  is  not  a  figurative, 
but  a  literal  expression ;  so,  the  nominative  <( 'fleshy  in  the 
second,  is  not  figurative,  but  literal.  Our  Lord  could  not  be 
supposed  to  use  the  same  figurative  word  to  represent  Himself 
literally  in  one  portion  of  His  discourse,  and  in  another  part  of 
the  same  discourse,  to  represent  His  flesh  figuratively — thus  not 
only  using  the  same  word  under  similarly  constructed  sentences 
in  a  different  sense,  but  using  a  figurative  expression  to  repro 

t  >  give  us  His  literal  flesh  for  food,  to  sustain  our  spiritual  life,  how  appropriate 
it  was  to  contrast  the  two.  in  the  strongest  manner.  One  was  living,  the  othei 
perishable;  but  both  were  literal. 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION.  527 

sent  a  figurative  substance.     It  would  seem  perfectly  clear,  that 
the  word  flesh  was  used  by  our  Lord  literally. 

If  a  speaker  use  words  in  any  known  sense,  he  is  not  bound 
to  define  the  sense  in  which  he  uses  them,  unless  there  be  some 
special  circumstances  requiring  it.  If,  on  the  contrary,  he  use 
known  terms  in  unknown  senses,  he  is  compelled,  by  every  con- 
sideration of  justice  to  himself  and  his  hearers,  to  define  the 
new  sense  in  which  he  uses  the  same.  Our  Lord  seems  to  have 
acted  upon  this  just  rule.  Although  it  was  common  among  the 
Jews  to  use  the  words  bread  or  food  for  wisdom  or  doctrines,  it 
was  not  so  common  to  use  these  words  for  a  lawgiver  or  teacher 
of  doctrines.  Our  Saviour  was,  therefore,  careful  to  show  the 
exact  sense  in  which  He  used  the  word,  in  the  two  different 
figurative  senses  stated. 

§  2.  The  same  matter  further  considered. 

It  will  also  be  observed,  that  in  the  first  portion  of  our 
Lord's  discourse,  while  speaking  of  Himself  under  the  image  of 
bread,  He  represents  this  as  given  by  the  Father ;  but  after 
verse  47,  He  speaks  of  the  food  now  described,  as  being  given 
by  Himself.  This  marked  difference  in  the  giver,  shows  a  dif- 
ference in  the  gift.  There  could  be  no  ground  for  this  differ- 
ence, if  faith  only  is  intended  ;  but  if  there  be  a  transition  to  a 
real  eating,  the  whole  is  clear.  While  we  contemplate  Christ 
as  the  object  of  our  faith,  and  as  the  sent  of  God  to  redeem  the 
world,  He  is  justly  said  to  be  given  by  His  Father.  "God  so 
loved  the  world,"  &c.  But  when  we  view  Him  as  giving  us 
His  own  flesh  to  eat,  it  is  more  correctly  said  to  be  by  His  own 
love  to  us. 

But  there  is  another  difference  between  the  language  of  the 
two  portions  of  our  Lord's  discourse,  still  more  marked  and 
explicit. 

That  the  same  words,  by  usage,  may  have  both  a  literal  and 
figurative  meaning,  must  be  conceded.  That  the  meaning  of  a 
speaker  must  be  determined  by  the  usage  existing  at  the  time, 
and  not  by  that  existing  afterwards,  must  also  be  clear.  That 
it  is  the  duty  of  every  honest  speaker,  who  uses  words  or 
phrases  having  a  known  signification,  in  a  neic  and  unknown 
sense,  to  define  this  new  sense,  must  also  be  conceded.  lij 


528  TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 

therefore,  the  phrase,  to  "  eat  the  flesh  "  of  any  one,  had  any 
tixed  figurative  as  well  as  literal  meaning,  at  the  time  it  was 
used  by  Christ,  then  the  Jews  and  disciples  could  only  under- 
stand this  expression  in  one  or  the  other  of  those  established 
meanings.  They  could  have  no  right  to  understand  them  in  a 
new  and  unknown  sense,  unless  Christ  had  given  an  express  defi- 
nition, as  He  did  of  the  word  bread,  or  unless  the  context  was 
so  clear  as  to  leave  no  doubt.  What  right  had  they  to  put  an 
unknown  sense  upon  a  known  phrase,  with  fixed  meanings  ?  If 
hearers  could  put  such  a  construction  upon  the  language  of  a 
speaker,  there  would  be  no  bounds  to  this  licentious  privilege. 
Once  beyond  the  control  of  the  only  rules  governing  the  sense 
of  words  and  phrases,  they  are  at  sea  without  chart  or  compass. 

If  the  phrase,  to  eat  the  flesh  of  any  one,  had,  besides  its  lit- 
eral, an  established  metaphorical  sense,  among  the  Jews,  and 
only  one  metaphorical  sense,  then  how  must  the  Jews  have  un- 
derstood it  ?  If,  on  the  contrary,  it  had  more  than  one  meta- 
phorical meaning,  how  must  they  have  understood  it  ?  In  the 
first  case,  they  could  only  understand  it  either  in  its  literal 
sense,  or  in  the  only  metaphorical  sense  known  to  the  language. 
In  the  second,  they  could  only  understand  it  in  its  literal  sense, 
or  in  one  of  its  metaphorical  senses. 

Now  what  was  the  metaphorical  meaning  of  this  expression  ? 
In  all  cases  when  used  metaphorically,  it  meant  to  do  a  person 
some  grievous  injury,  principally  by  slander  or  false  accusation. 
The  following  are  examples  of  its  figurative  meaning  in  Scrip- 
ture : 

''  While  the  wicked  draw  near  against  me  to  eat  up  my  flesh." 
(Ps.  xxvii.  2.)  "  Why  do  you  persecute  me,  and  are  not  satis- 
fied with  (eating)  my  flesh?"  (Job  xix.  22.)  "  Who  also  eat 
the  flesh  of  my  people."  (Micheas  iii.  3.)  "  The  fool  foldeth 
his  arms  together  and  eateth  his  own  flesh."  (Ecc.  iv.  5.)  I 
am  not  aware  of  any  other  passages  in  the  Old  Testament  where 
this  expression  is  used  in  a  figurative  sense.  In  all  the  above 
cases,  the  idea  of  inflicting  upon  the  person  a  grievous  injury  is 
clearly  conveyed. 

The  following  examples  are  found  in  the  New  Testament : 
"  Shall  eat  your  flesh  as  it  were  fire."  (St.  James  v.  iii.)  "But 
if  you  bite  and  devour  one  another."  (Gal.  v.  15.) 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION.  529 

Regarding  the  meaning  of  this  phrase  among  the  Arabs,  and 
in  the  language  which  our  Lord  spoke,  Dr.  Wiseman,  in  his 
Lectures  on  the  Eucharist,  p.  73-81,  has  shown  conclusively, 
that  it  has  only  the  same  figurative  meaning. 

The  differences  between  the  language  of  the  two  portions 
of  our  Lord's  discourse,  are  so  marked  and  clear  that  we  are 
forced  to  concede,  not  only  a  change  of  topic,  but  we  are  forced 
to  take  the  expression,  "  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  man,"  in  its 
literal  sense,  or  we  must  take  it  in  the  metaphorical  sense  of 
calumniating  our  Lord. 

The  reason  upon  which  this  usage,  among  so  many  nations, 
is  founded,  would  seem  to  be  plain.  The  metaphorical  sense  of 
a  term  always  comes  after  the  literal ;  and,  for  that  reason,  will 
participate  of  its  character.  If  the  literal  sense  convey  a  harsh 
meaning,  the  figurative  will  do  the  same.  If  one  knows  the  lit- 
eral meaning  of  a  term,  he  can  almost  at  once  fix  upon  its  meta- 
phorical sense.  To  literally  eat  the  flesh  of  a  person,  is  natur- 
ally a  revolting  idea.  Therefore,  when  such  an  expression  is 
used  metaphorically,  it  conveys  the  same  harsh  meaning.  For 
this  reason,  we  find  no  examples,  even  among  classical  writers, 
where  a  person  is  figuratively  said  to  eat  the  flesh  of  another, 
except  those  which  convey  the  harsh  idea  of  the  literal  sense. 
(See  Dr.  Wiseman's  Lee.  E.,  85.) 

If  we  take  the  expression,  To  eat  the  flesh  of  Christ,  in  the 
only  figurative  sense  known  at  the  time,  and  say  that  such  was 
His  meaning,  His  words  reduced  to  literal  language  would  stand 
about  thus  :  "  Except  ye  do  some  grievous  injury  to  the  Son  of 
Man,  ye  have  no  life  in  you."  This  interpretation  must  at  once 
be  rejected  ;  and  this  being  true,  we  are  forced  to  take  the  ex- 
pression in  its  literal  sense,  or  in  some  new  and  unknown,  and 
undefined  figurative  sense.  And  what  right  have  we  to  do  the 
latter  ? 

But  there  is  another  consideration  of  very  great  importance. 
Our  Lord  certainly  intended  to  be  understood,  otherwise  He 
would  have  been  making  an  idle  display  of  words.  He  was  put- 
ting forth  an  important  doctrine,  which  He  could  not  mitigate 
or  soften,  however  repugnant  to  human  pride  or  prejudice. 
He  could  not  but  state  the  truth  ;  and  whether  the  truth  was 
acceptable  or  uot,  His  practice  was  always  to  state  it.  "If  1 
46 


530  TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 

shall  say  that  I  know  him  not,  I  shall  be  like  you,  a  liar.r 
(John  viii.  55.)  While,  therefore,  our  Lord  would  never  soften 
His  doctrines,  He  would  hardly  resort  to  repulsive  figures  of 
speech  to  inculcate  pleasing  doctrines.  Faith  in  the  death  of 
Christ  is  one  of  the  most  cheering  doctrines  of  Christianity ;  and 
to  inculcate  this  doctrine  would  our  Lord  say,  "  Except  ye  eat 
the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  Man  and  drink  his  blood,  ye  have  no  life 
in  you,"  thus  resorting  to  a  revolting  figure  of  speech,  without 
the  slightest  necessity  ? 

There  are  certainly  some  mutual  rights  existing  between  a 
speaker  and  his  hearers.  The  object  of  every  just  speaker  is  to 
elucidate,  not  to  confuse  his  subject — to  enlighten,  not  to  in- 
sult his  audience.  He  will  necessarily  be  led  by  this  considera- 
tion, to  adapt  his  mode  of  instruction  to  the  capacity  and  feel- 
ings of  his  hearers.  This  was  the  uniform  practice  of  St.  Paul, 
who  was  "  all  things  to  all  men  ; "  and  of  St.  Peter  when  he 
said,  "  I  know,  brethren,  that  you  did  it  through  ignorance,  as 
did  also  your  rulers."  This  was  also  the  course  of  our  Lord 
Himself. 

The  question  then  arises,  were  the  ideas  of  eating  human 
flesh  and  drinking  blood  revolting  to  the  Jews  ?  If  they  were 
so,  then  we  cannot  suppose  our  Saviour  to  resort  to  them  as  im- 
ages of  cheering  doctrines  ;  nor  can  we  suppose  He  used  these 
expressions  at  all,  unless  the  doctrine  He  inculcated  necessarily 
compelled  Him  to  use  them  for  the  purpose  of  propounding  the 
exact  truth  itself.  If  the  literal  sense  given  by  "the  Jews  was 
correct,  then  the  use  of  these  expressions  was  clearly  necessary. 
And  to  show  that  these  expressions  were  revolting  to  the  Jews, 
I  need  only  to  refer  to  the  texts  cited  below.* 

It  was  doubtless  this  revolting  idea  which  the  Jews  had  of 
eating  human  flesh  and  drinking  blood,  that  induced  many  of 
the  disciples  to  "  walk  no  more  "  with  our  Lord,  and  to  disbe- 
lieve the  doctrine  He  taught.  They  considered  it  not  only  im- 
possible, but  contrary  to  the  law  of  Moses.  The  law  of  Moses 
having  been  given  by  God,  and  they  not  understanding  its  tem- 


*  Levit.  iii.  17 ;  vii.  26  ;  xix.  26  ;  Gen.  ix.  4 ;  Deut.  xii.  16  ;  xv  23  ;  Levit. 
xvii.  10;  1  Kings  xiv. ;  Ez.  xxxiii.  25;  Judith  xi.  1.0-12;  Wisdom  xi.  7;  I& 
xlix.  26 ;  Jer.  xix.  8,  9 ;  Acts  xv.  29. 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION.  531 

porary  character,  and  looking  upon  the  literal  doctrine  of  oui 
Lord  as  conflicting  with  the  law  of  Moses,  they  at  once  reject- 
ed it. 

But  it  may  be  said  that  our  Lord  did,  on  other  occasions, 
clothe  His  ideas  in  images  almost,  if  not  quite,  as  offensive  to 
His  hearers.  For  example,  He  represents  the  necessity  of  pa- 
tient suffering  under  the  harsh  image  of  carrying  the  cross.  But 
this  case  is  not  in  point  for  two  reasons  :  1.  The  death  of  the 
cross,  though  disgraceful,  was  often  inflicted  upon  the  innocent ; 
while  eating  flesh  and  drinking  blood  was  wicked  in  itself;  and 
to  select  such  an  example  to  inculcate  a  doctrine,  was  very  dif- 
ferent from  referring  to  an  example  simply  disgraceful.  2.  The 
doctrine  of  mortification  is  necessarily  harsh  in  itself,  requiring 
a  harsh  figure  to  represent  it  truly.  The  figure  selected  by  our 
Lord  was  fit  and  appropriate,  and  had  the  advantage  of  His  own 
example.  But  the  figure  of  eating  flesh  and  drinking  blood  to 
illustrate  a  pleasing  doctrine  has  no  parallel  anywhere  in  Scrip- 
ture. 

§  3.  How  did  the  hearers  of  our  Lord  understand  Him  f 

The  preceding  remarks  relate  to  the  sense  in  which  the  hear- 
ers of  our  Lord  must  have  understood  Him,  according  to  the 
then  existing  usage.  It  is  now  proper  to  inquire  in  what  sense 
they  did,  in  fact,  understand  Him. 

The  construction  put  upon  the  language  of  a  speaker  by 
those  who  hear  him,  is  at  least  prima  facie  evidence  of  his  true 
meaning.  This  presumption  becomes  almost  conclusive,  when 
the  speaker  is  aware  of  the  construction  placed  upon  his  lan- 
guage, and  does  not  object  to  it ;  and  it  becomes  entirely  con- 
clusive, when  the  speaker,  by  his  acts  or  words,  confirms  the  in- 
terpretation of  his  hearers.  It  is  true,  that  in  regard  to  a  point 
of  no  importance,  a  speaker  may  well  let  his  audience  remain  in 
error,  as  that  error  would,  in  no  material  respect,  influence  their 
determination.  But  if  the  error  be  material,  it  is  the  clear  duty 
of  the  speaker  to  explain,  except  in  special  cases,  as  where  a  fu- 
ture event  will  give  the  hearers  the  true  interpretation.  In  the 
case  under  consideration,  the  error  was  most  material. 

That  the  hearers  of  Christ  understood  Him  in  the  literal 
sense,  is  scarcely  denied  by  any  writer.  When  our  Lord  said 


532  TKANSUBSTANTIATICXN. 

"  And  the  bread  that  I  will  give  is  my  flesh,"  the  Jews  "  strove 
among  themselves,  saying,  How  can  this  man  give  us  his  flesh 
to  eat  ?  "  That  they  understood  Him  in  the  literal  sense  is  ap- 
parent from  these  considerations : 

"  First,  that  the  Jews  considered  the  expression  just  used  as 
totally  different  from  those  in  the  first  portion  of  the  discourse. 
For  if  they  had  understood  by  eating  his  flesh,  the  same  as  hav- 
ing him,  the  bread  of  life — this  having  been  already  explained 
by  himself  of  believing  on  him — they  could  not  ask  in  what 
manner  this  manducation  was  to  take  place. 

"  Secondly.  We  must  conclude  that  the  Jews  understood 
the  transition  to  be  the  doctrine,  literally  expressed,  of  feeding 
upon  Christ ;  for  their  objection  supposes  him  to  be  teaching  a 
doctrine  impossible  to  be  practised ;  '  How  can  this  man  give 
us  his  flesh  to  eat  ?  '  Now  no  other  but  the  literal  significa- 
tion could  possibly  give  rise  to  this  objection."  (Wiseman's 
Lee.  Euc.  102.) 

Thirdly.  If  nothing  new  was  asserted  by  Christ,  (as  they 
understood  Him,)  then  there  could  have  been  no  apparent  cause 
for  the  increased  excitement.  Nothing  but  understanding  our 
Lord  in  the  literal  sense,  can  be  consistent  with  the  intense  ex- 
citement that  followed  our  Lord's  declaration. 

§  4.  Did  they  understand  Him  correctly  f 

To  arrive  at  a  true  answer  to  this  question,  in  addition  to 
that  which  has  already  been  advanced,  we  must  inquire  whether 
Christ,  by  word  or  act,  confirmed  the  interpretation  put  upon 
His  words  by  those  who  heard  Him.  To  understand  the  mean- 
ing of  His  conduct  on  this  occasion,  we  must  examine  it  on  other 
occasions,  and  ascertain  what  was  His  usual  mode  of  action  un- 
der similar  circumstances. 

1.  When  He  used  words  in  a  figurative  sense,  and  His  hear- 
ers understood  Him  literally,  and  made  objections,  what  was 
His  usual  course  f 

When  Christ  said  to  Nicodemus,  that  "  unless  a  man  be 
born  again  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God,"  he  un- 
derstood Him  literally,  and  our  Lord  at  once  corrected  the 
error.  So,  when  He  said  to  His  disciples,  "  Beware  of  the  leaven 
of  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees,"  they  understood  Him  literally, 


TKANSUBSTANTIATION.  533 

and  He  at  once  explained  His  true  meaning.  So,  when  He 
said,  "I  have  food  to  eat  that  ye  know  not  of,"  and  they  mis- 
understood Him,  He  corrected  the  error.  So,  when  He  said, 
"  Lazarus  our  friend  sleepeth,"  they  understood  Him  in  the  lit- 
eral sense,  and  He  at  once  explained.  In  this  case  the  explana- 
tion was  not  so  important,  as  no  doctrine  was  propounded.  So, 
when  He  said,  "  Whither  I  go  you  cannot  come,"  the  Jews  un- 
derstood Him  in  a  gross  material  sense,  and  asked,  "  Will  he 
kill  himself?"  Our  Lord  at  once  removed  this  absurd  con- 
struction by  spying,  "  You  are  from  beneath,  I  am  from  above ; 
you  are  of  this  world,  I  am  not  of  this  world."  (John  viii.  21.) 
When  He  said,  "  It  is  easier  for  a  camel,"  <fcc.,  His  disciples  un- 
derstood Him  that  a  rich  man  could  not  be  saved,  and  He  at 
once  corrected  their  mistake.  (Matt.  xix.  24.)  When  He 
spoke  to  the  Jews  of  spiritual  slavery,  they  understood  Hiir 
literally,  and  He  at  once  corrected  their  misconstruction.  (John 
viii.  32.)  When  our  Lord  told  the  Jews  that  if  they  were  the 
children  of  Abraham  they  would  do  the  works  of  Abraham,  and 
they  understood  Him  to  mean  literally  that  they  were  not  Abra- 
ham's descendants,  He  explains  by  saying,  "  You  are  of  your 
father,  the  devil,  and  the  desires  of  your  father  ye  will  do ; " 
showing  that  He  meant  their  spiritual,  not  natural  descent. 
(Id.  39.)  And  when  His  disciples  said  one  to  another,  "  What 
is  this  that  he  saith,  a  little  while  ?  We  know  not  what  he 
speaketh ;  "  our  Lord,  in  succeeding  verses,  explains  His  mean- 
ing until  He  was  properly  understood.  (John  xvi.  17,  18.) 

From  these  examples,  it  appears  that  our  Lord  acted  upon 
the  just  and  generous  rule  which  requires  every  speaker  to  ex- 
plain his  meaning  when  misunderstood;  and  that  He  was  so 
much  in  this  habit,  that  He  not  only  explained  to  His  disciples, 
but  even  to  His  most  perverse  and  obstinate  enemies. 

2.  When,  on  the  contrary,  He  used  words  in  their  literal 
sense,  and  Sis  hearers  understood  Him  correctly,  and  made 
objections,  what  was  then  His  usual  course  f 

The  following  examples  will  form  an  answer  to  this  ques- 
tion : 

When  our  Lord  said  to  the  sick  of  the  palsy,  "  Son,  be  of 
good  heart,  thy  sins  are  forgiven  thee,"  His  hearers  understood 
Him  correctly,  and  made  objections,  and  our  Saviour  stood 


534  TEAN8UBSTANTIATION. 

to  His  words.  (Matt.  ix.  2.)  So,  when  He  said  to  the  Jews 
"  Abraham  your  father  rejoiced  that  he  might  see  my  day :  he 
saw  it  and  was  glad."  Those  who  heard  Him  understood  Him 
literally  as  saying  that  He  was  coeval  with  Abraham,  and  our 
Lord  at  once  stood  to  His  position,  notwithstanding  that  He 
foresaw  that  personal  violence  would  be  the  result  of  His  course. 
(John  viii.  56.)  This  eighth  chapter  affords  us  marked  exam- 
ples of  our  Lord's  method  of  acting  in  both  cases. 

In  the  very  chapter  under  consideration  we  have  an  instance. 
Christ  having  asserted  that  He  came  down  from  heaven,  and 
His  hearers  understanding  Him  literally,  and  making  objections, 
He  stands  to  His  position,  and  repeats  the  same  assertion  in 
other  parts  of  the  chapter.  (50,  51,  59.) 

From  these  numerous  examples  we  are  forced  to  adopt  these 
two  rules:  1.  When  His  hearers  misunderstood  Him,  and  ob- 
jected, He  explained  His  true  meaning.  2.  When  they  under- 
stood Him  correctly  and  objected,  He  repeated  His  proposition. 

And  this  course  was  in  perfect  accordance  with  reason,  jus- 
tice, and  truth.  Where  a  speaker  uses  words  susceptible  of 
different  meanings,  and  he  is  aware,  as  our  Lord  was,  of  the 
construction  placed  upon  his  words,  and  he  then  repeats  them 
without  explanation,  he  adopts,  expressly,  the  construction  of 
his  hearers,  and  makes  it  his  own  by  his  own  most  explicit  act, 
and  the  construction  becomes  conclusive.  We  can  imagine  a 
case  where  a  human  speaker,  under  the  influence  of  fear,  or 
some  other  extraordinary  motive,  might  thus  act,  and  not  be 
concluded  by  his  conduct ;  but  we  are  at  a  loss  to  imagine  a 
case  where  a  Divine  Lawgiver  could  thus  act,  without  fixing 
the  meaning  put  upon  His  words,  by  those  who  heard  Him. 

We  will  endeavor  to  apply  these  rules  to  the  case  in  hand. 

After  our  Lord  had  explicitly  stated  that  the  bread  He 
would  give  was  His  flesh,  and  the  Jews  had  asked  the  question, 
"  How  can  this  man  give  us  his  flesh  to  eat  ?  "  our  Lord  makes 
no  explanation,  but  repeats  the  proposition  in  terms  still  more 
emphatic,  reaffirming  the  truth  of  the  proposition  He  had  just 
before  advanced.  "Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  Except  ye 
eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  Man,  and  drink  His  blood,  ye  have 
no  life  in  you.  Whoso  eateth  my  flesh  and  drinketh  my  blood 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION.  535 

hath  eternal  life ;  and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day.     For 
my  flesh  is  meat  indeed,  and  my  blood  is  drink  indeed." 

The  case  under  consideration  then  falls  plainly  under  the 
latter  rule.  His  words  being  correctly  understood,  in  their  lit- 
eral sense,  and  His  proposition  itself  being  disputed,  our  Saviour 
makes  no  explanation,  but  stands  to  His  words,  and  repeats 
them  in  six  different  forms,  still  more  emphatic  than  before. 

§  5.  Exceptions  to  the,  rules  deduced  from  our  Lord's  conduct. 

Let  us  now  examine  certain  alleged  exceptions  to  the  two 
rules  we  have  deduced  from  our  Lord's  conduct.  If  we  find 
exceptions  to  either  rule,  let  us  carefully  examine  and  see  how 
far,  and  how  far  only,  such  exception  will  limit  the  application 
of  the  rule.  In  other  words,  let  us  see  whether  the  exceptions, 
if  any  such  exist,  establish  or  destroy  the  rule,  or  simply  limit  it. 

There  are  only  two  cases  found  in  the  history  of  our  Lord's 
conduct,  relied  upon  as  conflicting  with  these  rules. 

The  first  case  is  that  found  in  the  fourth  chapter  of  St.  John, 
in  our  Lord's  conference  with  the  Samaritan  woman.  This 
case  is  only  an  apparent  exception  to  the  first  rule.  I  say  appa- 
rent only,  for,  as  I  take  it,  the  woman  not  only  should  have  un- 
derstood Him  correctly,  but  did  so  understand  Him ;  and  that 
the  whole  circumstances  and  language,  taken  and  considered 
together,  very  clearly  show  it ;  and  that  so  far  from  constituting 
an  exception  to  the  first  rule,  it  is  a  case  in  support  of  it. 

Our  Saviour,  in  the  tenth  verse,  in  answer  to  her  question  as 
to  why  He,  being  a  Jew,  would  ask  of  her  to  drink,  replies,  "  If 
thou  didst  know  the  gift  of  God,  and  who  he  is  that  saith  to 
thee,  give  me  to  drink,  thou  perhaps  wouldst  have  asked  of 
him,  and  he  would  have  given  thee  living  water."  She  evi- 
dently understands  Him  in  a  literal  sense,  and  shows  this  by  her 
answer.  The  language  of  Christ  was  simply  "  living  water ;  "  a 
phrase  that  might  well  be  taken  literally.  Our  Saviour,  in  the 
13th  and  14th  verses,  gives  her  an  explanatory  answer,  defining 
the  qualities  of  the  water  He  would  give,  and  concluded  by  say- 
ing, "  But  the  water  that  I  will  give  him,  shall  become  in  him 
a  fountain  of  water,  springing  up  into  life  everlasting." 

This  language  is  plainly  metaphorical,  and  is  so  plainly  so, 
that  no  one  reader,  to  my  knowledge,  ever  understood  it  other- 


536  TEANSUB8TANTIATION. 

wise.  But  the  Samaritan  woman  still  understood  him  literally  ' 
for  the  reason,  that  at  this  part  of  our  Saviour's  discourse,  she 
did  not  yet  know  who  it  was  that  spoke  to  her.  A  knowledge 
of  His  character  would  at  once  give  her  the  key  to  the  true 
meaning.  Christ  knew  that  she  had  correct  conceptions  of  the 
character  of  His  mission.  She  tells  Him,  in  the  25th  verse, 
that  she  knew  that  the  Messias  cometh,  and  when  He  is  come 
"  he  will "  (not  create  a  world,  or  wells,  or  streams  of  water, 
but)  "  tell  us  all  things  /  "  or,  in  other  words,  teach  us  all  truth. 
Our  Saviour,  therefore,  instead  of  giving  her  any  further  verbal 
explanations,  breaks  off  abruptly,  and  says,  "  Go  call  thy  hus- 
band, and  come  hither."  This  was  evidently  done  to  give  Him 
the  opportunity  to  show  her  that  He  possessed  divine  power ; 
and  in  the  end,  to  tell  her  plainly,  He  was  the  Christ.  The 
effect  of  this  information  upon  her  mind  is  shown  by  the  28th  and 
29th  verses.  She  left  her  water-pot,  (a  circumstance  showing  her 
haste  and  her  excitement,)  and  went  into  the  city,  and  said  to 
the  men  there,  u  Come,  and  see  a  man  who  has  told  me  all  things 
whatsoever  I  have  done.  Is  not  he  the  Christ  ?  "  This,  taken 
in  connection  with  the  language  of  the  men  to  her  in  the  42d 
verse,  shows  plainly  that  she  believed  that  He  was  the  Christ, 
and  that  she  understood  Him. 

But  our  Saviour  had  other  objects  in  view,  as  well  as  the 
instruction  of  a  single  person ;  and  these  objects  were  of  para- 
mount importance.  "  Upon  perusing  this  interesting  chapter," 
says  Dr.  Wiseman,  "  it  has  often  struck  me  as  one  of  the  most 
beautiful  instances  on  record  of  his  (our  Saviour's)  amiable  in- 
genuity in  doing  good.  He  desired  to  make  an  opening  for  his 
religion  among  the  Samaritans.  But  had  he  presented  himself 
among  them  uncalled,  had  he  commenced  his  preaching  of  his 
own  accord,  he  could  have  only  expected  to  be  rejected,  to  be 
ill-treated  as  a  Jew,  and  punished  as  a  religious  innovator.  He 
wishes,  therefore,  to  be  invited  by  the  Samaritans  themselves, 
and  he  selects  the  most  favorable  moment  and  means  for  effect- 
ing his  purpose.  He  dismisses  all  his  disciples  to  the  city  of 
Sichem,  and  seats  himself  at  the  well,  where  he  was  sure  to  find 
some  of  the  inhabitants,  and  where  the  rules  of  hospitality  in 
the  East  would  give  him  a  right  to  enter  into  conversation.  A 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION.  537 

female  accordingly  comes,  and  he  uses  this  right  by  asking  her 
for  water." 

The  conversation  which  follows  was  all  adapted  to  excite 
her  curiosity ;  and  the  replies  of  our  Lord,  and  the  ingenious 
manner  in  which  He  introduced  the  subjects,  all  go  to  show  the 
great  leading  object  He  had  in  view.  After  leading  her  from 
one  topic  to  another,  and  exciting  her  curiosity  to  its  highest 
pitch,  and  after  showing  her  that  He  knew  her  most  intimate 
domestic  relations,  (a  matter  best  calculated  to  excite  the  atten- 
tion of  a  woman  in  her  condition,)  He  tells  her  plainly,  that  He 
is  the  Christ.  The  woman  at  once  goes  into  the  city,  as  Jesus 
designed,  and  tells  the  men  of  the  wonderful  person  she  had 
met,  and  invites  them,  in  the  most  exciting  and  urgent  man- 
ner, to  come  and  see  Him,  giving  them  the  most  extraordi- 
nary reasons  for  the  request  she  made.  Our  Saviour  accord- 
ingly did  not  go  into  the  city,  until  they  came  to  Him  and 
invited  Him  in,  and  desired  Him  to  tarry  with  them.  After 
He  was  invited  He  remained  with  them  two  days,  making  many 
proselytes. 

An  examination  of  the  whole  narrative,  and  a  consideration 
of  the  relation  the  Samaritans  bore  to  the  Jews  and  their  reli- 
gion, must  convince  any  one  that  the  principal  object  Christ 
had  in  view,  in  His  conference  with  this  woman,  was,  at  first, 
more  to  excite  than  to  gratify  curiosity.  For  this  reason,  (al- 
though He  gives  her  an  explanation  of  His  meaning  in  verses 
13  and  14,  sufficiently  clear  to  her  when  she  was  afterwards 
informed  of  His  true  character,)  He  so  manages  His  discourse 
as  to  accomplish  the  great  end  had  in  view  by  Him.  If  she 
had  not  finally  have  understood  Him  to  speak  of  spiritual  wa- 
ters, instead  of  natural,  she  would  naturally  have  said,  after 
"  who  has  told  me  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  done,"  "  and  has 
promised  to  give  us  a  fountain  of  water,  more  excellent  than  the 
well  of  Jacob." 

But  putting  the  most  extreme  construction  upon  this  inci- 
dent, and  thence  concluding  that  the  Samaritan  woman  never 
did  understand  our  Saviour  otherwise  than  in  the  literal  sense, 
still  the  case  is  most  clearly  distinguishable  from  the  one  undei 
consideration,  in  these  most  important  particulars : 
47 


538  TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 

1.  He  was  not  speaking  of  a  doctrine  that  must  be  believed 
upon  pain  of  eternal  death. 

2.  The  woman  still  believed  on  Him,  and  was  not  lost  for 
want  of  an  explanation. 

3.  She  was  not  His  disciple,  who  already  believed  on  Him, 
and  was  still  permitted  to  go  away  forever,  simply  for  want  of 
an  explanation  of  one  hard  saying. 

4.  Christ  did  not  tell  her,  when  she  simply  misunderstood, 
that  she  did  not  believe. 

The  second  case  relied  upon  is  found  in  the  second  chapter 
of  St.  John's  Gospel. 

When  our  Lord  had  driven  out  the  money  changers  from 
the  temple,  and  the  Jews  had  asked  for  a  sign  of  His  authority, 
He  answered : 

"  Destroy  this  temple,  and  in  three  days  I  will  raise  it  up. 
The  Jews  then  said :  Six  and  forty  years  was  this  temple  in 
building,  and  wilt  thou  raise  it  up  in  three  days  ?  But  he  spake 
of  the  temple  of  his  body.  When,  therefore,  he  was  risen  again 
from  the  dead,  his  disciples  remembered  that  he  had  said  this, 
and  they  believed  the  Scriptures  and  the  word  that  Jesus  had 
said." 

Our  Lord,  in  this  case,  had  used  language  susceptible  of  two 
meanings,  and  the  Jews  took  the  word  temple  in  the  wrong 
sense,  and  He  suffered  them  to  remain  in  their  erroneous  con- 
struction, without  any  explanation.* 

Many  commentators  think  that  the  "  Jews  did  understand 
Christ  correctly,  and  that  it  was  only  malignity  which  made 
them  raise  an  objection  to  his  words.  They  suppose  that  the 
apostles  fully  understood  them,  as  St.  John  only  tells  us  that 
they  did  not  believe  them,  till  after  the  resurrection."  f 

With  all  due  deference  for  the  opinions  of  those  commenta- 
tors, I  must  say,  that  I  am  forced  to  believe  that  neither  the 
Jews  nor  the  apostles  understood  our  Saviour  correctly  at  the 
time  He  made  the  prediction ;  nor  do  I  believe  it  was  His  in- 

*  It  was  a  common  practice  to  call  the  body  a  vessel,  house,  tabernacle,  tem- 
ple, among  the  Jews.  St.  Paul  calls  it  a  vessel,  house,  tabernacle,  (2  Cor.  iv.  7; 
v.  1-4;  1  Thess.  iv.  4,)  and  frequently  a  temple.  (1  Cor.  iii.  16;  vi.  19;  2 
Cor.  vi.  1 6  )  See  Is.  xxxviii.  12. 

f  Wiseman's  Lee.,  lift. 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION.  539 

tention  that  they  should  then  understand  Him  correctly ;  nor 
can  I  see  any  necessity  that  they  should  so  understand  Him  at 
that  time  /  but  it  does  appear  to  me  that  there  were  the  best 
reasons  why  the  meaning  should  be  left  in  doubt,  to  be  settled 
by  the  event  of  His  resurrection. 

That  the  Jews  put  the  most  natural  construction  upon  His 
words,  would  appear  from  these  reflections.  He  had  driven  out 
the  money  changers  from  the  temple,  and  told  them  not  to  make 
the  house  of  His  Father  a  house  of  traffic.  So  far  He  spoke  of 
the  temple.  The  Jews  asked  for  a  sign  of  His  authority  for 
driving  out  those  men  from  the  temple,  and  our  Lord,  without 
explanation,  answered  :  "  Destroy  this  temple,"  &c.  The  only 
temple  that  had  been  spoken  of  was  the  Jewish  temple,  and  the 
Jews  inquired  for  His  authority  in  what  He  did  in  that  temple, 
and  our  Lord  said,  in  reply,  this  temple.  Suppose  we  strike 
out  verses  21  and  22,  which  contain  the  special  explanation,  (the 
advantages  of  which  the  Jews  had  not  at  that  time,)  and  ex- 
clude from  our  consideration  the  resurrection  of  Christ — in 
other  words,  place  ourselves  precisely  in  the  position  of  the 
Jews,  and  what  construction  would  we  place  upon  the  language 
of  our  Lord  ?  Surely,  the  construction  they  did. 

That  this  case  constitutes  an  exception  to  the  first  rule, 
must  be  conceded.  Our  Lord,  though  misunderstood,  gave  no 
explanation.  It  is  true,  He  did  not  repeat  His  statement, 
thereby  making  their  construction  His  own,  but  simply  left 
them  without  explanation.  This  is  not,  therefore,  an  exception 
to  the  second  rule. 

In  this  case  our  Lord  was  only  making  a  prediction,  and  not 
putting  forth  a  doctrine,  which  He  required  then  to  be  believed  ; 
and  this  distinction  is  most  material.     The  only  object  our  Lord 
had  in  making  this  prediction  was  to  constitute  it,  when  ful- 
filled, evidence  of  His  Divinity.     This  is  shown  by  verse  22. 
To  accomplish  all  He  intended,  He  had  simply  to  make  the  pre- 
diction.    The  act  of  making  it  did  not  constit«* — - 
it  was  both  the  making  and  fulfil  in 
His  words  showed  two  things:  1. 
foretold.     2.  That  it  could  be  kno 

Now  was  there  any  necessity  f<l 
could  not  be  expected  to  do  an  i 


540  TRANSTTBSTANTIATION. 

explained  His  true  meaning ;  would  that  have  removed  the  un- 
belief of  the  Jews  ?  It  was  just  as  great  a  miracle  to  raise  His 
own  body  from  the  grave,  as  to  raise  the  temple.  The  event 
fulfilling  the  prophecy  would  make  all  clear.  Our  Lord  did  not 
wish  to  interfere  with  the  personal  free  agency  of  the  Jews,  and 
it  was  not  His  purpose  to  make  His  prophecy  plain.  The  event 
pvedicted,  in  fact,  constituted  a  part  of  the  prediction  itself,  for 
&Q  purpose  of  explanation.  It  is  so  in  reference  to  prophecies 
generally.  They  are  purposely  left  obscure,  for  the  best  of 
reasons,  until  their  fulfilment  makes  them  clear. 

This  being  a  conceded  exception  to  the  first  rule,  how  far 
does  it  affect  that  rule  ?  Does  it  not  establish  and  sustain  it, 
rather  than  destroy  it  ?  It  being  a  special  exception,  for  special 
reasons,  and  the  fact  of  its  being  an  exception  being  EXPRESSLY 
marked,  does,  indeed,  strengthen  the  rule ;  and  why  ?  Because 
+he  same  apostle  who  records  the  words  and  conduct  of  our 
Lord  in  this  special  case,  also  records  His  words  and  conduct  in 
the  sixth  chapter ;  and  in  reference  to  this  special  case,  he  puts 
in  himself  an  express  explanation  of  our  Lord's  meaning,  and 
does  not  do  so  in  the  other.  Why  does  he  do  this  in  one  case, 
and  not  in  the  other?  The  reason  is  palpable.  Our  Lord  was 
misunderstood  in  the  one  case,  and  as  it  was  not  proper  for  Him 
then  to  give  the  explanation,  St.  John  gives  it  afterwards.  But 
as  to  eating  His  flesh,  He  was  correctly  understood;  and 
therefore  St.  John  purposely  fails  to  give  any  explanation. 
When  a  writer  takes  pains  to  point  out  certain  exceptions 
expressly,  he,  by  this  very  act,  negatives  all  idea  of  other  ex- 
ceptions, not  so  stated*  So  it  is  with  respect  to  a  statute. 
If  the  lawmaker  himself  assumes  to  state  exceptions  to  his 
own  general  rule,  he  must  be  presumed  to  intend  to  finish  his 
work,  and  not  leave  it  unfinished,  like  a  man  who  attempts  to 
build  a  house,  and  fails.  St.  John  was  in  the  habit  of  making 
these  explanations  in  cases  of  obscurity;  and,  had  our  Lord 
failed  to  make  an  explanation  when  misunderstood  as  to  eating 

*  In  the  great  case  of  Gibbons  v.  Ogden,  Chief  Justice  Marshall,  in  his  opinion, 
says :  "  It  is  a  rule  of  construction,  acknowledged  by  all,  that  the  exceptions  from 
a  granted  power  mark  its  extent ;  for  it  would  be  absurd,  as  well  as  useless,  to 
except  from  a  granted  power  that  which  was  not  granted — that  which  the  words 
of  the  grant  could  not  comprehend."  (9  Wheaton,  191.) 


TBANSUBSTANTIATION.  54:1 

His  flesh,  the  apostle  would  no  doubt  have  given  it.  Two  ex- 
planations occur  in  this  very  chapter,  verses  6  and  71.  Also  one 
in  the  last  chapter.  But  we  are  nowhere  told  that  the  Jews 
misunderstood  Christ.  No  subsequent  event  explains  His  mean- 
ing. On  the  contrary,  as  we  shall  see,  subsequent  events  con- 
firm the  construction  of  the  Jews. 

§  6.  Did  our  Lord  confirm  the  construction  put  upon  His  words 
by  the  Jews  f 

I  have  endeavored  to  show  that  the  case  under  consideration 
comes  under  the  second  rule ;  namely,  that  our  Lord  was  cor- 
rectly understood,  and  "His  proposition  itself  being  disputed.  He 
repeated  it  again  with  increased  emphasis.  Is  there  a  single 
instance  to  be  found,  where  His  hearers  misunderstood  Him, 
and,  in  reply  to  them,  He  repeated  His  words  without  explana- 
tion ?  Can  any  such  a  case  be  shown,  either  in  the  conduct  of 
Christ  or  in  that  of  any  other  just  speaker? 

The  Jews  had  made  the  objection  that  Christ  could  not  lit- 
erally give  them  His  flesh  to  eat ;  and  in  REPLY  TO  THIS 
OBJECTION",  "  Jesus  said  unto  them,  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto 
you,  Except,  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  Man,  and  drink  his 
blood,  ye  have  no  life  in  you,"  &c.  All  that  Christ  said  in 
verses  53  to  58  inclusive,  was  said  in  the  form  of  a  reply  to  the 
objection  of  the  Jews.  The  language  of  the  reply  of  our  Lord 
is  most  emphatic.  If,  therefore,  the  Jews  simply  misunderstood 
Him,  what  possible  purpose  could  He  have  had  in  making  such 
a  reply  f  Or  was  His  reply  without  a  purpose,  and  simply  idle  ? 
Was  it  meaningless?  Can  we  impute  such  a  weakness  to 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God  ?  We  dare  not  do  that.  Then  what 
could  He  mean  by  this  most  emphatic  reassertion  of  His  propo- 
sition itself,  when  that  proposition  had  not  been,  in  fact,  dis- 
puted by  the  Jews,  in  making  their  objection  ?  A  proposition 
cannot  be  believed,  unless  it  is  first  understood ;  nor  can  it  be 
disbelieved,  unless  first  understood.  We  can  believe  or  dis- 
believe a  proposition  without  comprehending  it,  but  we  can 
do  neither,  without  understanding  the  proposition.  Now  if  the 
Jews  simply  misunderstood  Christ,  their  objection  was  not 
aimed  at  the  real  proposition  itself,  but  at  an  imaginary  propo- 
sition, never  made.  Therefore,  for  our  Lord  to  repeat  to  them 


542  TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 

the  same  proposition,  in  substantially  the  same  language,  anel 
without  explanation,  would  have  been  about  as  idle  and  sense- 
less an  act  as  can  well  be  imagined.  What  possible  end  could 
the  repetition,  without  explanation,  of  a  misunderstood  propo- 
sition, accomplish  ?  Would  such  a  repetition  secure  the  recep- 
tion of  the  real  proposition  ?  On  the  contrary,  would  not  the 
repetition,  without  explanation,  of  a  misunderstood  proposition, 
but  defeat  the  very  purpose  the  Speaker  had  in  view,  by  ex- 
pressly confirming  His  hearers  in  their  mistake  f  When  Christ 
put  forth  His  proposition,  did  He  wish  to  be  understood  ?  and 
did  He  wish  His  proposition  to  be  believed  ?  If  He  did  not, 
for  what  purpose  did  He  put  it  forth  ?  He  was  not  simply 
making  a  prediction.  He  was  propounding  a  doctrine.  Did 
He  propound  this  doctrine  without  a  purpose  ?  If  He  pro- 
pounded a  doctrine,  it  must  have  been  true ;  and  if  true,  He 
must  have  intended  it  to  be  believed ;  and  if  so,  He  must  have 
intended  then  to  be  understood. 

If  we  say  the  metaphorical  sense  is  the  true  one,  then  we 
make  our  Lord's  conduct,  on  this  occasion,  the  strangest  anom- 
aly, at  war  with  His  own  uniform  practice  upon  all  similar  occa- 
sions, and  that  of  every  sincere  speaker.  And  we  do  this  with- 
out any  authority  or  example  to  sustain  us.  In  all  my  reading, 
observation,  and  experience,  I  have  never  met  with  an  instance 
where  a  speaker,  having  put  forth  a  proposition  which  he  wished 
to  be  understood,  and,  where  his  proposition  was  misunderstood 
by  his  hearers,  simply  repeated  it  in  language  still  more  em- 
phatic, but  without  explanation. 

But  when  the  proposition  is  understood  and  disputed,  it  is 
very  natural  and  proper,  that  the  speaker  should  repeat  it,  and 
reaffirm  it  with  increased  emphasis.  It  was  so  with  our  Lord, 
upon  this  occasion.  It  was  so  with  Him  upon  other  occasions. 
The  Jews  disputed  the  truth  of  the  understood  proposition 
itself,  and  our  Lord  at  once  replies,  in  substance,  believe  or  per- 
ish. When  Peter  said  to  his  Master,  "  Thou  shalt  .never  wash 
my  feet,"  our  Lord  at  once  replied,  in  substance,  as  He  did  to 
the  Jews,  "  If  I  wash  thee  not,  thou  hast  no  part  with  me."  In 
both  cases  the  language  is  strictly  confirmatory  of  the  words 
used  before.  Is  this  language  at  all  consistent  with  any  but  the 
literal  sense  ?  Peter  understood  our  Lord  in  the  literal  sense. 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION.  543 

and  objected  ;  and  our  Saviour  at  once  held  up  before  him  the 
penalty  of  the  law.  This  was  perfectly  consistent  with  His 
claim  to  the  character  of  a  Divine  Lawgiver.  And  was  not 
this  same  line  of  conduct  proper  towards  the  Jews  ?  Peter  as 
little  understood  the  reason  why  his  Master  should  wash  his 
feet,  as  the  Jews  did,  why  He  should  give  them  His  flesh  to 
eat  and  His  blood  to  drink.  Our  Lord  having  given  them,  as 
well  as  Peter,  conclusive  proofs  of  His  divine  character,  had 
the  unquestioned  right  to  demand  implicit  obedience.  While  it 
is  the  clear  duty  of  a  Divine,  as  well  as  of  a  human  Lawgiver,  to 
make  His  law  understood,  that  it  may  be  obeyed,  it  is  not  His 
duty  to  make  its  reasons  comprehensible.  It  is  enough  that 
Christ  did  right,  whether  we  comprehend  His  reasons  for  His 
law  or  not. 

For  the  reasons  given,  this  conclusion  seems  to  follow,  that 
the  acts  and  language  of  our  Lord  are  wholly  irreconcilable 
with  the  metaphorical  sense,  and  cannot  be  explained,  except 
upon  the  hypothesis  that  the  Jews  did  understand  Him  correctly 
in  the  literal  sense.  _ 

§  7.  Did  His  disciples  understand  Him  in  the  literal  sense  f 

The  verses  from  59  to  65  inclusive,  are  taken  up  mainly  in 
relating  what  the  murmuring  disciples  said,  and  in  our  Lord's 
reply  to  them.  The  words  "  these  things,"  in  verse  59,  refer  to 
the  entire  discourse ;  while  the  words  this  and  it,  in  verses  60 
and  61,  refer  to  only  one  thing;  namely,  that  hard  saying. 
What  was  that  hard  saying  ?  It  could  be  nothing  but  the  state- 
ment of  our  Lord  that  He  would  give  them  His  flesh  to  eat. 
In  other  words,  the  disciples  murmured  at  the  same  thing  that 
caused  the  Jews  to  strive  among  themselves  and  ask :  "  How 
can  this  man  give  us  his  flesh  to  eat  ?  " 

The  audience  of  Christ,  on  this  occasion,  consisted  of  the 
admiring  multitude  who  had  followed  Him  into  the  wilderness, 
among  whom  He  had  many  disciples,  "  who  believed  on  his 
name."  (John  ii.  23  ;  iii.  22.)  There  were  no  proud  Pharisees 
or  cunning  Sadducees  there.  They  (the  multitude)  accounted 
Him  as  a  prophet.  (14.)  We  are  told  that  "  the  people  took 
shipping  and  came  to  Capernaum,  seeking  for  Jesus."  (2  i.) 
From  verse  25  to  35,  inclusive,  the  historian  uses  the  pronoun 


544:  TKANSUBSTANTIATION. 

"  they "  to  designate  the  persons  who  asked  Christ  the  ques- 
tions, and  to  whom  He  gave  the  answers  recorded.  The  inqui- 
ries made  were  such,  up  to  this  point,  that  the  whole  multitude 
could  join  in  asking,  as  the  questions  themselves  were  not  im- 
proper. But  in  verses  41  and  42,  we  are  told  that  the  Jews 
murmured,  and  asked  the  question,  "  How  then  saith  he  I  came 
down  from  heaven  ?  "  Now  it  is  clear  that  the  disciples  who 
"  believed  on  his  name  "  did  not  join  with  the  Jews  in  denying 
that  Jesus  came  down  from  heaven.  They  believed  that  propo- 
sition, and  did  not  murmur  at  it,  as  did  the  Jews.  The  first 
and  only  thing  they  murmured  at  was  that  "  hard  saying," 
which  caused  the  Jews  to  strive  among  themselves.  The  word 
strive  is  a  very  expressive  term,  and  shows  a  more  intense  de- 
gree of  excitement  than  is  expressed  by  the  word  murmur. 
When  our  Lord  said  He  came  down  from, heaven,  the  Jews 
murmured,  while  the  disciples  believed.  But  when  He  put 
forth  another  proposition,  more  difficult  for  them  to  believe, 
the  Jews  "  strove  among  themselves,"  and  the  disciples  mur- 
mured. It  is  clear  that  the  term  Jews  is  used  by  the  historian 
to  distinguish  those  who  did  not,  from  those  who  did,  believe 
on  Christ. 

If,  then,  it  be  true,  that  Christ  only  continued  to  teach  the 
same  doctrine  He  had  taught  in  the  first  part  of  His  discourse, 
and  which  His  disciples  believed,  and  they  still  understood  Him 
correctly  in  the  metaphorical  sense,  how  could  they  have  mur- 
mured at  it,  and  called  it  a  hard  saying  ?  Would  they  now 
murmur  at  what  they  had  before  believed  ?  If  so,  why  ?  Such 
a  course  as  these  murmuring  disciples  pursued  is  utterly  incon- 
sistent with  any  other  hypothesis  than  the  one,  that,  like  the 
Jews,  they  understood  Christ  in  the  literal  sense.  The  whole 
narrative  is  full  and  clear  to  this  point.  The  historian  states 
that  the  murmuring  disciples  heard  this  hard  saying,  and  asked, 
"  Who  can  hear  it  ?  "  St.  John  unquestionably  refers  to  the 
saying  that  gave  so  much  offence  to  the  Jews ;  and,  as  he  speaks 
of  these  murmuring  disciples  asking  a  question  substantially  the 
same  with  that  asked  by  the  Jews,  he  must  mean  that  they  (the 
murmuring  disciples)  understood  our  Lord  in  the  same  literal 
sense. 

It  being  a  proven  position,  that  these  murmuring  disciples 


TRAtfSUBSTANTIATION.  5-15 

understood  our  Lord  in  the  literal  sense,  the  question  arises, 
did  they  understand  Him  correctly  ? 

Let  us,  then,  examine  the  language  of  our  Lord,  used  by 
Him  in  His  reply  to  these  murmuring  disciples:  "  He  said  unto 
them,  Doth  this  offend  you  f  "  Is  not  this  unaccountable  lan- 
guage in  the  mouth  of  a  Speaker,  whose  hearers  have  simply 
misunderstood,  but  have  not,  in  fact,  disputed  His  real  proposi- 
tion ?  Did  Christ  mean  to  ask,  "  Does  the  imaginary  proposi- 
tion, which  I  did  not  make,  offend  you  ? "  That  they  were 
offended  is  certain ;  and  if  they  simply  misunderstood  our  Lord's 
language,  then  they  were  only  offended  at  an  imaginary  propo- 
sition. They  had  simply  misunderstood  Him,  and  there  was, 
therefore,  in  their  minds,  no  real  cause  of  offence. 

But  such  a  question  could  alone  be  predicated  upon  the 
fact,  that  the  cause  of  offence  was  a  real  subsisting,  and  not  a 
mere  imaginary,  doctrine.  And  the  efforts  of  Christ  are,  there- 
fore, not  directed  to  an  explanation  of  His  meaning,  but  to  a 
proof  of  the  truth  of  His  proposition. 

In  further  sustaining  His  proposition,  in  His  reply  to  these 
murmuring  disciples,  who  had  heard  His  answers  to  the  Jews, 
our  Lord  adapted  His  arguments  to  the  state  of  their  minds  and 
predicated  them  upon  the  state  of  their  previous  belief.  They 
had  believed  and  readily  embraced  His  doctrine — they  had  not 
disputed  the  fact  that  He  came  down  from  heaven,  and  that 
He  was  there  before  /  but  like  those  disciples  represented  by 
the  good  seed  falling  into  stony  ground,  (Matt.  xiii.  20,  21,) 
they  now  met  a  real,  not  an  imaginary  difficulty.  Christ,  there- 
fore, said  to  them,  "  What  and  if  ye  shall  see  the  son  of  man 
ascend  up  where  he  was  before.  It  is  the  spirit  that  quicken- 
eth  ;  the  flesh  profiteth  nothing ;  the  words  that  I  speak  unto 
you,  they  are  spirit  and  they  are  life.  But  there  are  some  of 
you  that  believe  not.  Therefore  said  I  unto  you  that  no  man 
can  come  unto  me,  except  it  were  given  unto  him  of  my 
Father." 

Now  the  meaning  of  Christ  in  these  extracts  would  seem  to 
be  clear,  and  perfectly  consistent  with  the  literal  sense,  and 
wholly  irreconcilable  with  the  metaphorical.  The  substance 
was  this : 

"  You  consider  it  impossible  that  I  should  give  you  my  flesh 


54:6  TKANSUBSTANTIATION. 

to  eat ;  you  question  my  power  :  you  did  believe  that  I  came 
down  from  heaven  ;  if  you  see  me  ascend  up  where  I  was  be- 
fore, will  that  be  more  difficult  than  for  me  to  have  come  down  ? 
and  are  not  both  as  difficult  as  for  me  to  give  you  my  flesh  to 
eat  ?  The  proposition  is  hard  to  the  natural  man ;  it  is  the  spirit 
that  quickeneth  the  mind  to  believe — the  flesh  profiteth  nothing 
to  this  result :  you  must  not  rely  upon  yourselves  alone,  but 
upon  God,  for  I  have  told  you  already  that  no  man  can  come 
to  me  unless  it  be  given  him  of  my  Father,  and  this  you  did 
not  dispute  :  my  words  are  spirit  and  life,  but  there  are  some 
of  you  that  believe  not  the  proposition  I  have  propounded." 

But  we  may  give  the  words  of  our  Lord,  in  reply  to  the 
objection  of  these  murmuring  disciples,  any  construction  we 
please  ;  and  still,  one  thing  is  clear ;  they  were  solely  directed  to 
sustain  an  understood  and  disputed  proposition.  If  not,  why 
did  our  Lord  say,  "  My  words  are  spirit  and  life,"  when  they 
had  simply  been  misunderstood  ?  To  say  that  words  are  true, 
when  their  true  meaning  has  not  been  disputed,  would  be  idle. 
But  besides  this,  our  Lord  makes  a  statement  of  a  matter  of 
simple  fact  that  could  not  possibly  be  true,  unless  these  mur- 
muring disciples  did  understand  Him  correctly.  He  tells  them, 
"  But  there  are  some  of  you  that  believe  not."  They  had  said, 
"  This  is  a  hard  saying,  who  can  hear  it  ?  "  which  means,  who 
can  believe  it?  (John  viii.  43  ;  ix.  27.)  And  Christ  tells  them 
that  they  do  not  believe.  They  could  not  disbelieve  a  proposi- 
tion they  never  understood.  The  only  thing  they  had  disputed 
was  this  hard  saying,  that  He  would  give  them  His  flesh  to  eat ; 
and  it  was  in  reference  to  this  proposition,  and  to  this  only,  that 
our  Lord  told  them  they  "  believed  not." 

If,  then,  these  murmuring  disciples  simply  misunderstood 
our  Lord's  meaning,  how  could  He  tell  them,  "  you  believe  not"  ? 
If  the  Protestant  view  be  right,  these  disciples  refused  to  believe 
a  proposition  never  advanced,  and  one  that  was  not  true.  How 
can  you  class  men,  who  simply  misunderstand  a  proposition, 
with  unbelievers  of  the  proposition  itself?  What  sort  of  logic 
or  truth  is  there  in  saying  to  a  man,  who  simply  misunderstands 
you,  and  has  a  mere  imaginary  proposition  in  his  mind,  "  Sir, 
you  believe  not "  ?  Christ  certainly  intended  to  let  these  disci- 
ples know  that  their  error  consisted  in  not  believing.  This  could 


TKANSUBSTANTIATION.  547 

not  be  true,  if  they  simply  misunderstood.  There  could  be  no 
wrong  in  disbelieving  a  supposed  untnte  proposition.  And 
Christ  not  only  tells  these  disciples  that  they  did  not  believe  ; 
but  the  apostle  himself  classes  them  among  genuine  unbelievers 
(64.) 

But  it  may  be  said,  that  at  the  precise  time  when  these 
murmuring  disciples  said,  "  who  can  hear  it,"  they  did  misun- 
derstand our  Lord ;  but  that  His  subsequent  words,  found  in 
verses  62  and  63,  so  explained  His  meaning  as  that  they  did  cor- 
rectly understand  Him  at  the  time  He  said,  "  you  believe  not." 
This  would  be  assuming  facts  outside  the  record,  not  only  with- 
out the  slightest  evidence,  but  contrary  to  the  simple  narrative 
of  the  facts  as  stated  in  it.  We  are  informed  that  Jesus  knew 
in  Himself  that  the  disciples  murmured,  (61,)  but  there  is  not 
the  slightest  intimation  anywhere,  either  by  St.  John,  who  puts 
in  several  explanations  of  his  own  in  this  same  chapter,  or  by 
the  words  or  acts  of  Christ,  that  He  was  misunderstood  by  any 
one.  On  the  contrary,  we  are  expressly  informed  that  these 
disciples  did  dispute  one  proposition,  and  we  are  not  informed 
that  they  did  dispute  any  other ;  and,  therefore,  Christ  could 
only  refer  to  that  one — that  hard  saying  as  they  at  first  imder- 
stood  it. 

§  8.  How  did  the  apostles  understand  our  Lord  f 

Let  us  now  ascertain  how  the  twelve  understood  our  Lord. 

"We  are  told  that  many  of  His  disciples  left  Him,  and  walked 
no  more  with  Him.  It  was  then  that  our  Lord  put  this  mourn- 
ful and  solemn  question  to  the  twelve :  "  Will  ye  also  go  away  ?  " 
And  then  the  intrepid  and  ardent  soul  of  Peter  answered, 
"  Lord,  to  whom  shall  we  go  ?  thou  hast  the  words  of  eternal 
life.  And  we  believe  and  are  sure  that  thou  art  that  Christ, 
the  Son  of  the  living  God." 

Now,  it  is  apparent  that  Christ's  question  to  the  twelve  was 
predicated  upon  the  same  state  of  facts  as  His  question  to  the 
murmuring  disciples,  "  Doth  this  offend  you  ? "  and  upon  the 
ground  that  the  twelve  had  the  same  inducements  to  disbelieve, 
as  these  murmuring  disciples  who  had  left  Him.  If  the  twelve 
understood  Him  in  a  different  sense  from  the  Jews  and  disbe- 
lieving disciples,  there  could  be  no  reason  for  asking  such  a 


54:8  TRANSUBSTANTIATED^. 

question.  The  fervent  and  confiding  answer  of  Peter  shows 
conclusively  that  the  twelve  also  understood  their  Lord  as  the 
others  had  understood  Him ;  that  is,  literally.  The  minds  of 
the  twelve  had  to  overcome  the  same  difficulty  that  had  wrecked 
the  faith  of  the  many  who  abandoned  their  Lord.  The  reason 
given  by  Peter  was  the  most  simple,  logical,  and  rational.  We 
are  sure  you  are  that  Christ,  and  have  the  words  of  eternal  life. 
This  was  enough,  and  they  were  compelled  to  believe  any  thing 
that  Christ  propounded,  whether  they  comprehended  it  or  not. 
The  twelve  then  understood  Him  in  a  literal  sense,  and  be- 
lieved that  which  the  others  disbelieved.  And  if  they  at  that  time 
believed  the  doctrine  that  Christ  would  literally  give  them  His 
flesh  to  eat,  when  and  where  did  they  ever  change  their  opinion, 
and  where  is  that  important  fact  recorded  ?  We  find  a  part  of 
the  disciples  at  one  time  disbelieving  a  certain  doctrine,  and 
the  chosen  twelve  believing  the  same  thing  at  the  same  time ; 
and  if  we  can  find  no  evidence  of  any  change  in  the  minds  of 
the  twelve,  what  right  have  we  to  say,  either  that  there  was 
such  a  change,  or  that  they  did  not  correctly  understand  the 
meaning  of  our  Lord's  words  ?  At  a  given  time  we  find,  in  the 
minds  of  the  apostles,  a  certain  construction  of  our  Lord's 
words;  we  find  this  construction  was  not  objected  to  by  Him, 
but  was  confirmed  by  word  and  act,  that  could  not  be  reconciled 
with  any  other  construction ;  and  we  find  afterwards  not  the 
slightest  evidence  to  correct  such  an  error,  if  error  it  was,  and 
upon  what  ground  can  we  assume  that  these  apostles  were  then 
mistaken  f  It  is  true,  there  are  several  cases  where  it  is  stated 
that  the  chosen  apostles  misunderstood  our  Lord's  meaning  at 
the  time  His  words  were  spoken ;  but  in  these  cases  we  are  ex- 
pressly informed  of  the  fact,  and  of  the  further  fact,  that  they 
afterwards  understood  Him  correctly,  and  we  are  also  informed 
what  Christ  did  in  fact  mean.  Now,  in  these  instances,  our 
doubts  are  wholly  removed  by  explicit  explanations ;  and  yet, 
in  this  important  case,  where  a  great  doctrine  was  taught,  upon 
which  hung  eternal  life  and  death,  and  where  the  misconstruc- 
tion of  our  Lord's  words  was  in  reference  to  a  most  vitally  es- 
sential matter,  and  gave  them  a  meaning  precisely  opposite  to 
the  one  intended  ;  and  yet  we  have  no  explanation — not  one  of 
those  so  often  put  in  by  St.  John,  to  make  the  meaning  clear. 


TRANS  INSTANTIATION.  54:9 

§  9.   Objections  considered. 

1.  That  the  Eucharist  was  not  then  instituted,  and,  for  that 
reason,  neither  the  Jews  nor  the  disciples  could  correctly  un- 
derstand what  our  Saviour  meant. 

This  is  one  of  those  abstract  objections,  founded  upon  our 
preconceived  views  of  things,  which  should  be  very  carefully 
considered,  before  we  allow  it  any  force  against  the  obvious  and 
natural  construction  of  words  and  phrases.  Not  only  so,  but  as 
I  take  it,  the  abstract  position  itself  is  wrong. 

Was  it  then  improper  that  our  Saviour  should  promise  a 
sacrament,  and  teach  the  doctrine  of  the  same,  before  its  insti- 
tution ?  I  think  not.  Our  Saviour  taught  for  more  than  three 
years  before  His  death,  and  preparatory  to  setting  up  His  king- 
dom. In  the  nature  and  reason  of  things,  it  was  proper  first  to 
teach  His  doctrines,  and  then  to  put  them  in  force.  And  we 
find  this  was  His  course.  For  instance,  in  His  conversation 
with  Nicodemus,  which  was  before  the  institution  of  baptism, 
the  necessity  of  it  is  taught.  And  I  must  say  that  there  is  a 
wide  difference  between  teaching  the  simple  fact  that  baptism 
is  essential  to  salvation,  and  the  mere  manner  of  its  administra- 
tion— a  wide  difference  between  teaching  the  simple  fact  of  giv- 
ing us  His  flesh  to  eat,  and  the  manner  in  which  it  was  to  be 
given.  The  first  thing  to  be  taught  in  both  cases,  is  the  neces- 
sity and  effects  of  the  sacrament ;  and  as  to  the  manner,  this 
would  be  better  shown  by  its  institution  and  practical  adminis- 
tration.* Our  Lord  only  explained  so  far  to  Nicodemus  as  to 
show  him  that  He  did  not  speak  of  a  natural  birth ;  and  that 
He  could  not  understand  the  spiritual  birth  ;  but  gave  him  no 
explanation  at  all  as  to  the  manner  of  the  birth  by  baptism.  So, 
in  the  sixth  chapter  of  John,  our  Lord  gives  no  explanation 
of  the  mere  manner.  So,  when  He  washed  the  feet  of  Peter, 
He  would  give  no  explanation.  In  all  these  cases  He  required 
submission  upon  His  word  and  character,  as  Christ.  The  first 
thing  Nicodemus  said  to  Him,  was  to  acknowledge  He  was  a 

*  I  say  better  shown.  As  to  the  spiritual  effects  of  a  sacrament,  they  muat  he 
explained  in  words  sooner  or  later,  and,  therefore,  the  proper  time  to  explain 
these  effects  is  when  the  promise  is  giver,  and  hefore  the  actual  institution.  But 
as  to  the  manner  of  administering  the  sacrament,  no  description  in  words  c<  uld 
be  as  satisfactory  as  the  act  of  administering  it. 


550  TBANSUBSTANTIATION. 

teacher  sent  from  God ;  and  upon  this  acknowledgment  our  Sa 
viour  at  once  announces  to  him  the  difficult  doctrine  of  the  ne\V 
birth,  and  only^explains  enough  to  make  His  words  understood, 
and  then  very  properly  required  implicit  belief.  A  mere  fallible 
teacher  ought  to  be  believed,  when  he  proves  the  truth  of  his 
proposition  by  facts,  or  reasons,  or  both;  but  an  infallible 
teacher  has  only  to  prove  that  he  is  such,  and  then  his  proposi- 
tions are  to  be  believed  upon  his  assertion.  "  This  discourse  in 
the  sixth  chapter  of  John  stands  in  the  same  relation  to  the  in- 
stitution of  the  Eucharist,  as  the  conference  with  Nicodemiis 
does  to  the  institution  of  baptism."  (Wis.  Lee.,  l£7.) 

But  if  there  be  any  thing  in  this  objection,  it  applies  with  as 
much  force  to  the  metaphorical  view.  The  Jews  and  disciples 
could  comprehend  it  as  little  when  applied  to  feeding  on  Christ 
by  faith,  as  when  applied  to  the  Eucharist.  "  For  to  call  bare 
believing  in  Christ,  eating  his  flesh,  and  drinking  his  blood,  is 
so  remote  from  all  propriety  of  speaking,  and  so  unknown  in 
all  languages,  that  to  this  day  those  who  understand  nothing 
more  by  it  but  believing  in  Christ,  are  able  to  give  no  tolerable 
account  of  the  reason  of  the  expression."  * 

2.  That  the  literal  construction  proves  too  much ;  for  if  we 
give  the  language  of  verses  53  to  57  a  literal  construction,  we 
must  say  that  those  who  do  not  eat  the  flesh  shall  all  die,  those 
who  do  shall  all  live,  and  all  abide  in  Christ ;  in  other  words, 
we  must  put  in  some  restrictions,  such  as  worthy  and  so  far. 
Now  an  interpretation  clogged  with  restrictions  is  not  to  be 
preferred  (other  things  being  equal)  to  one. having  no  restric- 
tions. 

This  argument  is  much  relied  upon  by  many  Protestant 
writers.  When  a  general  principle  is  asserted  in  one  place,  and 
the  qualifications  or  exceptions  stated  in  another,  this  does  not 
form  the  slightest  ground  for  opposing  the  construction.  Our 
Saviour  says,  "  he  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved." 
There  is  no  restriction  here,  and  yet,  unless  the  act  is  performed 
with  the  proper  dispositions,  there  is  no  salvation.  "  Ask  and  ye 
shall  receive."  No  limitation  here.  But  St.  James  says,  "  ye 

*  Dr.  Sherlock,  364-3G7,  cited  Wiseman's  Lee.  E.  I  most  cheerfully  ac- 
knowledge the  great  assistance  I  have  received  from  the  Lectures  of  Dr.  Wiseman 
on  the  Eucharist. 


TRAN8UBSTANTIATION. 

do  not  receive,  because  ye  ask  amiss."  In 
tain  effects  are  attributed  to  certain  acts  or 
plied  condition  is  always  understood,  that  il 
formed.  But  in  reference  to  the  Catholic  construction, 
not  the  slightest  difficulty,  for  St.  Paul  tells  us  explicitly  that 
"  whosoever  shall  eat  this  bread  and  (or)  drink  this  cup  of  the 
Lord  unworthily,  shall  be  guilty  of  the  body  and  blood  of  the 
Lord."  (1  Cor.  xi.  27-29.)  This  must  be  taken  and  construed 
with  the  language  of  our  Lord  in  the  sixth  chapter  of  John,  ac- 
cording to  the  4th  and  5th  rules  of  construction  we  have  laid 
down.  Every  thing  said  in  Scripture  upon  the  same  subject 
must  be  considered  as  part  of  the  same  discourse.  If  the  Cath- 
olic construction  be  correct,  there  is  nothing  inconsistent  with 
it  in  this  objection.  Another  reflection  that  ought  to  have  at 
once  satisfied  these  objectors,  is  this :  that  the  question  as  to 
the  effects  that  Christ  attributes  to  His  doctrine,  is  not  the 
matter  in  dispute  at  all ;  but  we  are  inquiring,  not  as  to  what 
effects  are  given  to  the  doctrine,  but  as  to  what  doctrine  was 
propounded.  It  is  manifest  that  the  effects  Christ  attributes  to 
His  doctrine,  would  apply  as  well  to  the  metaphorical  as  the 
literal  sense ;  and  that  in  either  case  there  must  be  restrictions, 
if  they  can  be  properly  called  such. 

3.  A  third  objection  urged  generally  by  ordinary  controver- 
sialists, but  entirely  given  up  by  the  best  Protestant  writers,  is 
founded  upon  the  language  of  verse  63.  "  It  is  the  spirit  that 
quickeneth  ;  the  flesh  profiteth  nothing  :  the  words  that  I  speak 
unto  you,  they  are  spirit,  and  they  are  life."  Our  Lord  is  sup- 
posed by  these  words  to  intimate  that  His  language  was  to  be 
taken  spiritually,  and  so  to  have  intended  this  as  a  key  to  the 
preceding  part  of  the  discourse. 

It  would  seem  at  once  that  this  language  could  not  refer  to 
the  mode  of  construing  words,  but  to  the  difficulty  of  belief,  and 
the  aids  to  it.  I  have  already  given  what  I  considered  the  fair 
interpretation  of  this  language,  taken  in  connection  with  what 
immediately  follows  and  precedes  it. 

Let  us  then  examine  the  usage  of  Scripture,  to  see  in  what 
sense  the  word  "  flesh  "  is  used,  when  standing  alone,  and  not 
used  to  designate  the  flesh  of  a  particular  person  or  thing,  and 
especially  when  used  with  the  article  "  the  "  before  it,  as  in  the 


TKANSUBSTANTIATION. 

text.  When  it  is  used  as  in  the  text,  there  is  no  instance  in 
the  Old  or  New  Testament  where  it  is  used  literally.  Yet  it 
must  have  been  used  in  the  text  in  the  literal  sense,  for  us  to 
understand  by  the  word  spirit  the  figurative  or  spiritual  sense. 
If  by  the  flesh  we  are  to  understand  the  material  flesh  of  Christ, 
then  by  the  spirit  we  must  understand  His  spirit.  This  can  in 
no  way  show  us  that  His  words  are  to  be  taken  spiritually,  for 
it  could  not  relate  to  construction  of  words  at  all.  The  asserted 
fact  that  His  spirit  gives  us  life,  would  not  relate  to  the  manner 
of  construing  His  words. 

But  the  terms  flesh  and  spirit  are  contrasted  with  or  op- 
posed to  each  other  in  the  text.  The  examples  in  Scripture 
of  this  usage  are  very  numerous,  and  in  all  the  cases,  these 
words  have  one  definite  and  unvarying  meaning.  A  full  expla- 
nation of  these  terms  may  be  found  in  the  eighth  chapter  of 
Romans.  "  For  the  wisdom  of  the  flesh  is  death,  but  the  wis- 
dom of  the  spirit  is  life  and  peace."  (See  also  Gal.  v.  13-26  ;  1 
Pet.  iv.  6 ;  Matt.  xxvi.  41  ;  Jo.  iii.  6  ;  Rom.  vii.  5,  6,  25 ;  1  Cor. 
v.  5  ;  2  Cor.  vii.  1 ;  Gal.  iii.  3 ;  iv.  8  ;  1  Pet.  iii.  18.  The  origin 
of  the  phrase  will  be  further  explained  by  Jo.  viii.  15  ;  Rom. 
xiii.  14  ;  Gal.  ii.  20;  2  Pet.  ii.  10.) 

Now,  in  all  these  cases,  there  is  not  the  slightest  intimation 
given  that  the  ideas  conveyed  by  these  phrases  have  any  refer- 
ence to  the  construction  of  language,  but  they  show  that  two 
different  powers  or  states  are  meant.  By  the  flesh  we  under- 
stand the  natural  dispositions  and  corrupted  thoughts  of  human 
nature,  and  by  the  spirit,  the  opposite  effect  of  grace  upon  man. 
The  qualities  attributed  to  these  powers  or  states  are  the  same 
as  in  the  sixth  of  John.  "  The  wisdom  of  the  flesh  is  death." 
"  The  flesh  profiteth  nothing."  "  The  wisdom  of  the  spirit  is 
life."  "  It  is  the  spirit  that  quickeneth." 

The  Protestant  writers,  Kuinoel,  Kappe,  Sartorious,  Stow, 
Schmid,  Bloomfield,  Schleusner,  and  Home,  agree  with  the 
Catholic  interpretation.  Bloomfield  says,  "  This  translation  (the 
popular  one)  cannot  be  proved  from  the  usus  loquendi  of  Scrip- 
ture." Mr.  Home  says :  "  The  Holy  Spirit  is  put  for  his  effects. 
(2  Cor.  iii.  6.)  Here,  by  the  word  letter,  we  are  to  understand 
the  law,  written  in  letters  on  stone.  *  *  * 

"  By  the  spirit  is  meant  the  saving  doctrine  of  the  gospel, 


TKANSUBSTANTIATION. 

which  derives  its  origin  from  the  Holy  S] 

sense  Jesus  Christ  says,  Jo.  vi.  63:  'The  w 

they  are  spirit  and  life ; '  that  is,  they  are 

God,  and  if  received  with  true  faith,  will  lead  to  etei~ 

Now  this  view  is  manifestly  a  support  to  the  literal  sen.  . 
Our  Lord  had  propounded  a  very  difficult  doctrine,  to  which 
etern  objections  were  made ;  and  how  natural  and  appropriate 
the  sentiments  expressed  in  this  verse.  As  if  He  had  said  :  "  It 
is  the  spirit  (or  effect  of  grace)  that  quickens  the  mind  to  be- 
lieve ;  the  natural  disposition  and  corrupted  thoughts  of  men 
are  not  profitable  towards  this  result — my  words  are  from  the 
Spirit  of  God,  and  if  believed  with  true  faith,  will  lead  to  eter- 
nal life."  Thus  reaffirming  the  truth  of  the  proposition  already 
made,  and  not  explaining  the  meaning  of  His  words. 

This  long  chapter  is  one  of  the  most  wonderful  to  be  found 
in  Scripture.  It  is,  in  my  view,  the  most  clear  and  unequivocal 
statement  of  the  sublime  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence.  It 
would  seem  that  a  calm  and  attentive  examination  of  its  lan- 
guage, taken  in  connection  with  the  simple  facts  stated,  could 
leave  no  doubt.  The  Protestant  construction  gives  rise  to  the 
most  distressing  and  palpable  contradictions.  For  example,  if 
it  be  conceded  that  the  murmuring  disciples  understood  Christ 
in  the  literal  sense,  then,  to  avoid  the  Catholic  view,  we  must 
hold  that  Christ  was  mistaken  when  He  told  those  disciples  that 
they  "  believed  not."  And  if  we  say  that  the  twelve  understood 
Christ  in  the  figurative  sense,  then  we  can  see  no  possible  rea- 
son for  our  Lord  asking  them  if  they  would  also  go  away.  If 
He  had  proposed  nothing  new,  and  nothing  hard  to  flesh  and 
blood,  there  was  nothing  to  constitute  a  new  and  severe  trial  of 
their  faith. 

In  any  and  every  view,  it  is  a  wonderful  chapter,  full  of  high 
and  holy  truths.  Like  any  other  sincere  speaker,  our  Lord 
was  never  disposed  to  gain  followers  at  the  expense  of  truth 
He  taught  His  doctrines  boldly,  and  sustained  them  with  an 
energy  and  power  proportioned  to  the  intensity  of  the  opposi- 
tion. His  language,  especially  in  reply  to  the  Jews,  is  one  of 
the  noblest  specimens  of  Divine  eloquence,  and  of  unflinching 
assertion  of  the  truth,  to  be  found  in  the  history  of  His  life. 
48 


j54:  TKANSUBSTANTIATION. 

There  is,  perhaps,  no  portion  of  His  discourses,  more  energetic 
and  emphatic. 

§  10.   The  words  of  institution. 

As  the  Catholic  understands  it,  the  Blessed  Eucharist  was 
promised  in  the  sixth  chapter  of  St.  John's  Gospel,  leaving  the 
mere  manner  in  which  it  was  to  be  given,  to  be  explained  by 
the  institution  of  the  Sacrament. 

The  history  of  this  institution  is  given  in  the  first  three  Gos- 
pels, and  in  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul.  The  narrations  are  sub- 
stantially the  same,  though  differing  in  some  slight  particulars. 
In  all,  the  words  are  given :  "  This  is  my  body.  This  is  my 
blood."  St.  John,  in  his  Gospel,  says  nothing  about  the  institut- 
ing of  the  Sacrament. 

Our  Lord  says  :  "  This  is  my  body ;  "  and  the  Catholic  re- 
sponds :  "  Lord,  I  believe  it  to  be  thy  body ; "  while  the  Prot- 
estant replies :  "  Lord,  I  believe  it  be  a  figure  of  thy  body." 
Who  replies  yea,  yea,  to  our  Lord's  assertion  ?  Is  it  the  Cath- 
olic or  Protestant  ? 

The  Catholic  maintains  that  the  verb  to  be,  in  the  passage, 
is  to  be  taken  in  its  ordinary  literal  sense,  and  the  Protestant 
contends  that  it  ought  to  be  taken  in  a  figurative  sense,  equiva- 
lent to  the  word  represents. 

In  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  this  verb  is  used  many 
thousands  of  times  in  its  literal  sense.  These  examples  are  too 
numerous  to  require  any  specification.  The  literal  sense  of  the 
term  is  then  the  general  rule.  Those  who  oppose  the  literal  and 
simple  construction  are  compelled  to  show  two  things : 

1.  That  there  are  exceptions  to  the  general  rule. 

2. 'That  the  verb  to  be,  in  this  case,  comes  properly  within 
the  exceptions. 

Dr.  Paley  draws  an  argument  in  favor  of  the  truth  of  Chris- 
tianity, from  the  difficulty  of  arriving  at  the  metaphorical  sense, 
from  the  words  of  institution. 

"  I  think  also,"  he  says,  "  that  the  difficulty  arising  from  the 
conciseness  of  Christ's  expression,  'This  is  my  body,'  would 
have  been  avoided  in  a  made-up  story.  I  allow  that  the  expla- 
nation of  these  words,  given  by  Protestants,  is  satisfactory ;  but 
it  is  deduced  from  a  diligent  comparison  of  the  words  in  ques 


TRANS  UBSTANTIATION.  555 

tion,  with  forms  of  expression  used  in  Scripture,  and  especially 
by  Christ  on  other  occasions.  No  writer  would  have  arbitrarily 
and  unnecessarily  cast  in  his  reader's  way  a  difficulty,  which,  to 
say  the  least,  it  required  research  and  erudition  to  clear  up." 

But  it  would  seem  that  the  learned  author  might  have  made 
his  argument  much  stronger,  had  he  taken  the  literal  sense  to 
be  correct.  He  might  then  have  well  insisted  that  the  inven- 
tion of  such  a  doctrine  was  a  task  of  superhuman  difficulty — 
that  nothing  but  the  Divine  Mind  could  have  framed  it,  and 
that  no  mere  impostor  would  ever  have  "  arbitrarily  and  unne- 
cessarily cast "  in  the  way  of  his  followers  a  doctrine  so  much 
at  war  with  the  pride  of  the  human  heart,  and  so  difficult  to  be 
believed  by  the  proud  human  intellect — a  doctrine  requiring  so 
much  greater  faith. 

And  it  would  seem,  upon  reflection,  to  be  difficult  to  under- 
stand the  force  of  the  argument,  as  stated  by  the  learned  divine. 
It  must  be  conceded,  that  the  maker-up  of  a  fictitious  story 
would  not  have  "  arbitrarily "  thrown  this  "  difficulty  in  his 
reader's  way ; "  while,  at  the  same  time,  it  is  exceedingly  diffi- 
cult to  understand  why  Christ  should  have  done  so.  Whether 
Christ  was  an  impostor  or  not,  He  must  have  equally  desired 
the  success  of  His  system ;  and  for  that  reason,  He  would  not 
have  "arbitrarily  and  unnecessarily  cast  a  difficulty"  in  the 
way  of  His  followers.  If  He  was  the  true  Messiah,  it  would 
have  been  as  much  against  His  policy,  and  more  against  His 
justice,  to  have  done  this  arbitrary  and  unnecessary  act,  than  it 
would  have  been  against  the  policy  of  the  impostor.  The  thing 
is  improbable  in  both  cases,  but  more  improbable  upon  the  hy- 
pothesis that  Christ  was  the  true  Messiah. 

The  honest  and  sensible  Infidel  can  well  understand^vhy 
Christ  should  sometimes  be  misunderstood,  when  speaking  of 
high  and  supernatural  truths,  which,  in  their  very  nature,  are 
difficult,  even  when  most  minutely  stated ;  but  he  could  never 
understand  why  He  should,  in  making  His  last  Testament,  and 
instituting  a  most  important  sacrament,  use  language  in  its  plain 
literal  form,  which  He  yet  designed  should  be  understood  in  a 
new  and  unknown  figurative  sense ;  and  this  without  any  expla- 
nation, when  explanation  would  have  been  so  easy,  and  with  a 
perfect  foreknowledge  of  all  the  consequences  of  such  "  arbi- 


556  TRANS  DBSTANTIATTON. 

trary  and  unnecessary  difficulty."  The  mere  substitution  of 
one  word  for  another,  would  have  avoided  all  difficulty.  I  ap- 
prehend that  the  honest  inquirer  could  see  nothing  in  this  argu- 
ment to  prove  that  Christ  was  a  Divine  Lawgiver,  who,  in  a 
plain  matter,  is.  in  substance,  alleged  to  have  "  arbitrarily  and 
unnecessarily  cast  in  his  reader's  way  a  difficulty,  requiring  re 
search  and  erudition  to  clear  up." 

In  this  extract  the  author  admits  that  there  is  one  "  difficulty 
requiring  research  and  erudition  to  clear  up ; "  and,  consequent- 
ly, that  the  New  Testament  is  not  all  plain  and  easily  under- 
stood, as  generally  alleged  by  Protestant  writers  when  arguing 
with  Catholics.  But  this  ground  must  be  abandoned,  when 
they  come  to  argue  with  Infidels. 

From  this  admission  of  the  author,  as  well  as  from  the  re- 
spective positions  of  the  two  parties,  the  Catholic  mode  of  in- 
terpretation is  the  most  simple  and  natural,  and  must  be  over- 
come by  the  research  and  erudition  of  the  Protestant.  And 
while,  according  to  a  well-known  rule  of  evidence,  we  may  take 
Dr.  Paley's  admissions  as  evidence  against  himself,  we  are  not 
bound  to  believe  his  conclusions. 

The  first  thing  the  Protestant  must  show,  is,  that  there  are 
exceptions.  To  do  this  they  bring  forward  a  number  of  pas- 
sages, which  may  be  classed  as  follows : 

1.  Gen.  xli.  26,  27  :  "The  seven  good  kine  are  seven  years." 
Dan.  vii.  24  :  "The  ten  horns  are  ten  kings."     Matt.  xiii.  38,  39 : 
"  The  field  is  the  world,"  &c.     1  Cor.  x.  4  :  "  And  that  rock 
was  Christ."     Rev.  i.  20:  "The  seven  stars  are  the  angels  of 
the  seven  churches."     Gal.  iv.  24  :  '  These  are  the  two  cove- 
nants."    John  x.  7 :  "I  am  the  door." 

2.  John  xv.  1  :  "I  am  the  true  vine." 

3.  Gen.  xvii.  10:  "This  is  my  covenant."     Exod.  xii.  11: 
"This  is  the  Lord's  Passover." 

Some  of  these  cases  clearly  establish  the  first  point,  that 
there  are  exceptions  to  the  general  rule.  The  next  and  most 
important  point  to  prove,  is,  that  the  words  "  This  is  my  body," 
come  within  the  exceptions.  To  do  this  the  same  passages  are 
relied  upon. 

In  considering  these  texts,  let  us  see  how  they  are  marked, 
BO  as  to  be  known  as  exceptions.  There  must  be  some  mark  or 


TRANS  INSTANTIATION.  557 

distinction  to  point  out  exceptions;  otherwise,  we  could  not 
know  them  to  be  such.  The  usages,  habits,  and  practice  of  the 
writer,  considered  hi  connection  with  the  usages  of  language, 
will  enable  us  to  determine  the  exceptions.  If  we  find  that  in 
relation  to  a  certain  class  or  classes  of  cases,  the  verb  to  be  is 
used  in  a  metaphorical  sense,  when  it  is  generally  used  in  its 
literal  sense,  then  all  cases  that  come  within  such  class  or  class- 
es, constitute  exceptions.  But  the  existence  of  such  exceptions, 
thus  marked  and  distinguished,  is  no  evidence  that  other  ex- 
ceptions  exist,  which  are  not  thus  marked  and  distinguished. 
So  far  from  it,  the  existence  of  such  exceptions,  thus  marked 
and  distinguished,  is  a  clear  proof  that  other  cases,  not  thus  des- 
ignated, are  not  exceptions,  but  are  intentionally  left  to  be  gov- 
erned by  the  general  rule. 

It  is  perfectly  clear  that  exceptions  do  exist — that  they  are 
so  marked  as  to  be  distinguished  from  the  general  rule — and 
that  we  must  distinguish  between  them.  Before  the  words  of 
institution  can  be  considered  as  an  exception,  it  must  be  shown 
that  they  belong  to  one  or  the  other  of  the  classes  stated.  In 
other  words,  it  must  be  shown  that  these  passages  are  parallel 
with  the  words  of  institution,  otherwise  they  prove  nothing. 

Now  what  constitutes  parallelism  ?  Two  things ;  namely — 
1.  A  similarity  of  words.  2.  A  similarity  of  things. 

This  is  substantially  the  definition  of  the  Protestant  writer, 
Mr.  Home,  and  others.  Mr.  H.  says : 

"  Whenever  the  mind  is  struck  with  any  resemblance,  in  the 
first  place  consider  whether  it  was  a  true  resemblance,  and 
whether  the  passages  are  sufficiently  similar ;  that  is,  not  only 
whether  the  same  word,  but  also  the  same  thing  answers  to- 
gether, in  order  to  form  a  safe  judgment  concerning  it.  It  often 
happens  that  one  word  has  several  distinct  meanings,  one  of 
which  obtains  in  one  place,  and  one  in  another.  When,  there- 
fore, words  of  such  various  meanings  present  themselves,  all 
those  passages  where  they  occur  are  not  to  be  immediately  con- 
sidered as  parallel,  unless  they  have  a  similar  power." 

To  illustrate  briefly  this  sensible  rule,  suppose  I  wish  to 
show  the  meaning  of  the  phrase,  "  It  is  the  spirit  that  quicken- 
eth  :  the  flesh  profiteth  nothing ; "  I  would  refer  to  the  cases 
already  given,  wherein  not  only  the  same  words  are  used,  but 


558  TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 

where  they  are  put  in  contrast,  and  where  they  refer  to  the 
same  thing.  So,  if  I  wish  to  illustrate  the  passage,  "  the  seven 
good  kine  are  seven  years,"  I  would  refer  to  that  of  "  the  field 
is  the  world,"  and  both  these  by  "  these  are  the  two  covenants," 
for  they  all  have  the  same  words  and  relate  to  the  same  thing ; 
namely:  the  explanation  of  symbolical  instruction. 

§  11.   The  first  class  of  alleged  exceptions  considered. 

How  do  we  know  that  the  passages  in  the  first  class  stated 
do  constitute  exceptions  ? 

In  the  first  two  cases  we  are  expressly  told  that  Joseph  and 
Daniel  were  interpreting  dreams,  and  in  the  third,  that  our  Lord 
was  interpreting  a  parable.  In  the  fourth  case,  St.  Paul  first 
says :  "  And  did  all  drink  the  same  spiritual  drink,  for  they 
drank  of  that  spiritual  Rock ; "  and  then  tells  us,  "  and  that 
Rock  was  Christ."  The  apostle,  for  the  purpose  of  explanation, 
first  transforms  the  real  rock  of  Horeb  into  a  spiritual  or  ficti- 
tious rock,  and  then  says  that  spiritual  rock  was  Christ.  The 
language  of  St.  Paul,  taken  in  connection  with  the  historical  re- 
lation of  the  Israelites  drinking  the  water  flowing  from  the  rock 
of  Horeb,  leaves  his  meaning  so  clear,  that  no  one  has  ever  mis- 
understood him.  The  case  from  the  Apocalypse  is  equally  clear. 
"Write  the  things  which  thou  hast  seen.  *  *  *  The  mystery 
of  the  seven  stars.  *  *  *  The  seven  stars  are  the  seven  angels." 
Here  the  apostle  John  was  explaining  a  mystery.  So,  in  the 
case  from  Gallatians,  St.  Paul  is  careful  to  inform  us  that  he  is 
explaining  an  allegory.  "  Which  things  are  an  allegory,  for 
these  are  the  two  covenants."  In  reference  to  the  last  case,  "  I 
am  the  door,"-  our  Lord  was  interpreting  a  parable.  We  are 
first  informed  that  Christ  opened  the  eyes  of  the  man  blind 
from  his  birth — that  Jesus  had  found  the  man  after  the  Jews 
had  cast  him  out,  and  some  of  the  Pharisees  being  present,  and 
making  objections,  our  Lord  commences  the  discourse  in  which 
these  words  occur.  (John  ix.  1—41.)  In  the  "tenth  chapter  He 
continues  the  same  discourse,  and  in  the  first  five  verses  gives 
in  part  the  parable  of  the  sheepfold.  In  verses  6  and  7  we  are 
told,  "  This  parable  spoke  Jesus  unto  them,  but  they  understood 
not  what  things  they  were  which  he  spake  unto  them.  Then 
said  Jesus  unto  them  again,  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  I 


TRANSUBSTANTIATICXN.  559 

am  the  door  of  the  sheep."  Our  Lord  goes  on  in  succeeding 
verses,  still  speaking  of  the  same  thing,  and  in  verse  26  He  tells 
the  Jews  that  they  "  believe  not  because  ye  are  not  of  my  sheep, 
as  I  said  unto  you." 

In  all  these  cases  we  are  clearly  told  that  these  passages  are 
explanations  of  symbolical  instruction.  Some  are  dreams,  some 
parables,  some  allegories,  and  some  mysteries.  They  all  have 
the  same  character,  and  belong  to  the  same  class. 

And  the  reason  of  this  is  plain.  In  symbolical  instruction, 
the  symbolical  characters  are  fictitious,  and  the  characters  rep- 
resented are  real.  Hence,  when  we  are  first  told  that  the  sym- 
bolical characters  are  fictitious,  and  the  represented  characters 
are  real,  the  usages  of  language  allow  the  use  of  the  verb  to  be 
between  two  nominatives,  (one  fictitious  and  the  other  real,)  in 
a  figurative  sense.  There  is  no  more  chance  for  mistake  in  the 
explanation  of  a  dream,  parable,  or  allegory,  because  the  form 
of  the  expression  is  in  the  positive,  than  there  is  in  the  relation 
of  the  same,  when  the  language  used  is  in  the  same  positive 
form.  We  are  first  told  that  it  is  symbolical  in  all  the  cases, 
and  this  constitutes  a  key  to  the  meaning.  When  we  are  once 
so  informed,  the  statement  proceeds  as  if  the  facts  were  real. 
"  Behold  a  sower  went  forth  to  sow." 

Now  these  cases  constitute  a  class  of  exceptions,  for  tho 
simple  reason,  that  they  were  all  cases  of  symbolical  instruction, 
in  which  the  characters  representing  others  were  expressly  stated 
to  be  fictitious,  not  real.  How  can  such  cases  apply  to  the 
words,  "This  is  my  body"?  Are  we  informed  that  there  had 
been  any  dream  here  ?  any  parable  ?  any  allegory  ?  any  mys- 
tery ?  or  any  explanation  of  any  such  things  ?  Not  at  all. 

We  find  the  exceptions  of  the  first  class  so  plainly  marked 
and  distinguished,  that  no  one  ever  yet  had  any  difficulty  in  un- 
derstanding them  as  such.  But  in  reference  to  the  words  of 
institution,  we  find  no  such  distinction.  And  is  this  want  of  such 
a  character  any  reason  why  we  should  put  them  into  the  same 
class  with  parables,  dreams,  allegories,  and  mysteries?  The 
very  fact  that  they  are  different  requires  us  to  put  them  in  dif- 
ferent classes.  If  the  writer  intended  that  the  words  in  this 
case  should  be  taken  metaphorically,  why  did  he  not  follow  his 
usual  course,  and  mark  them  as  exceptions  ?  Having  marked 


560  TRANSTJBSTANTIATION. 

all  the  cases  that  we  know  to  be  exceptions,  why  are  we  not 
given  here  the  same  marks  to  aid  us,  as  in  the  other  cases  ? 
For  the  reason,  that  the  words  of  institution  constitute  no  ex- 
ception, and  are  purposely  left  to  come  under  the  general  rule 
of  literal  interpretation.* 

§  12.  The  second  class  of  alleged  exceptions  considered. 

The  case  given  under  this  class  is  simply  one  of  comparison, 
and  constitutes  no  exception  to  the  general  rule. 

The  words,  "  I  am  the  vine,"  occur  in  a  long  discourse  of 
our  Lord  with  the  eleven.  Our  Lord  institutes  a  comparison 
between  Himself  and  the  vine.  His  meaning  is,  "  I  am  as  the 
vine,  ye  are  as  the  branches."  This  is  clearly  shown  in  verses  4 
and  6. 

In  comparing  two  known  and  similar  things  together,  it  is 
very  common  to  omit  explanatory  terms,  such  as  resembles,  like, 
as,  similar.  The  reason  is,  because  the  known  resemblance  of 
the  two  things  compared  together,  renders  the  use  of  these 
terms  unnecessary.  The  tendency  of  all  usage  is  towards  brev- 
ity. Every  composition  is  full  of  elliptical  sentences.f 

*  The  imaginative  French  writer,  Rousseau,  objected  to  the  practice  of  stat- 
ing in  fables  that  dumb  beasts  had  conversations  with  each  other,  for  fear  that 
children,  seeing  the  positive  form  of  the  relation,  would  thence  conclude  that 
animals  had  the  power  of  speech.  Cowper,  in  one  of  his  fables,  takes  off  this 
writer  very  handsomely.  He  says,  in  substance,  that  a  boy  that  could  be  led 
into  an  error  in  this  way, 

"  Must  have  a  most  uncommon  skull." 

But  after  all  the  witticism  of  Cowper,  and  the  fact  that  no  child  was  ever  so 
deceived,  still  there  is  a  bare  possibility  that  children  may  hereafter  be  deceived, 
and  there  may  be  something  in  Rousseau's  objection.  If  grown  and  learned  men 
can  so  far  reason  the  meaning  clear  away,  as  at  last  to  believe  that  the  sense  of 
words  used  in  the  explanation  of  a  dream,  parable,  or  allegory,  can  be  at  all  ap- 
plicable to  texts  where  no  such  thing  exists,  then  why  may  not  children  be  de- 
ceived by  the  positive  form  of  word.*  in  a  fable  ? 

f  There  is  not  the  slightest  parallelism  in  the  expressions,  "  I  am  the  vine," 
"  This  is  my  body."  In  the  first,  the  sentence  is  simply  elliptical,  and  you  have 
only  to  fill  up  the  ellipsis  to  make  the  sentence  complete.  But  in  the  case  of 
This  is  my  body,  if  the  Protestant  construction  be  correct,  you  must  first  ex- 
punge the  verb  to  be ;  and  then,  substitute,  in  its  place,  the  verb  represents,  a 
v/ord  having  a  different  meaning ;  and  so  different,  that  the  verb  to  be  must  be 
struck  out,  to  make  room  for  the  other,  which,  when  siibstituted,  entirely  changes 
the  meaning. 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION.  561 

The  words  of  institution  cannot  be  put  into  the  second  class, 
for  the  reason  that  no  comparison  was  intended  by  Christ  be- 
tween bread  and  His  body.  No  one,  so  far  as  I  am  advised, 
has  ever  contended  that  any  comparison  was  meant. 

§  13.  The  third  class  of  alleged  exceptions  considered. 

The  two  cases  stated  in  this  third  class  constitute  no  excep- 
tions to  the  general  rule,  but  come  strictly  within  it,  and  the 
verb  is  used  in  its  literal  sense. 

The  first  passage,  "  This  is  my  covenant  between  me  and 
thee,"  has  been  made  by  a  misconstruction  to  apparently  sup- 
port the  metaphorical  sense.  And  I  must  say,  that  I  am  at  a 
loss  to  understand  how  so  plain  a  mistake  could  ever  have  been 
committed.  Had  the  question  come  up  before  a  court  of  jus- 
tice, this  misconstruction,  I  think,  could  never  have  arisen.  In 
the  chapter  we  are  told  that  God  appeared  to  Abraham,  and  en- 
tered into  a  covenant  with  him  and  his  posterity.  From  verse 
second  to  eight,  inclusive,  the  chapter  is  taken  up  with  the  con- 
ditions, on  the  part  of  God.  In  verse  nine,  God  tells  Abraham 
expressly  that  the  covenant  embraces  him  and  his  seed.  In 
verse  ten,  God  gives  Abraham  that  part  of  the  covenant  to  be 
kept  by  him  and  his  posterity,  on  their  part.  "  This  is  my  cov- 
enant, which  ye  shall  keep,  between  me  and  you,  and  thy  seed 
after  thee.  Every  male  child  among  you  shall  be  circumcised." 
The  phrase,  "This  is  my  covenant,"  refers  to  the  condition 
mentioned  in  the  same  sentence  to  be  kept  by  Abraham ;  to  wit : 
"  Every  male  child  among  you  shall  be  circumcised."  The 
whole  covenant  is  called  God's  covenant ;  but  when  God  comes 
to  speak  of  the  part  to  be  performed  by  Abraham,  He  designates 
it  by  saying,  "  This  is  my  covenant  which  ye  shall  keep,"  and 
then  gives  that  part  of  the  covenant  to  be  kept  by  Abraham. 
And  this  form  of  expression  is  common  and  proper  among  all 
men.  The  conditions  constituting  an  agreement  or  covenant 
may  be  put  down  first,  and  I  may  then  properly  say,  "  this  is 
my  agreement ; "  or  I  may  say,  "  this  is  my  agreement,"  and 
afterwards  give  the  conditions.  In  both  cases  the  sense  is  the 
same. 

There  are  many  instances  in  Scripture  parallel  to  this. 
"  This  is  my  covenant  with  thee,  saith  the  Lord :  my  Spirit  that 
49 


562  TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 

is  upon  thee,  and  my  words  which  I  will  put  in  thy  mouth,  shall 
not  depart  out  of  thy  mouth.''  (Is.  lix.  21.)  "And  this  is  the 
covenant  which  I  will  make  with  the  House  of  Israel ;  after 
those  days,  saith  the  Lord,  I  will  put  my  law  in  their  interior," 
<fco.  (Jer.  xxxi.  33.)  In  other  passages,  the  conditions  go  be- 
fore. (Exod.  xvi.  16-23 ;  Levit.  xvi.  34  ;  xvii.  7.) 

It  is  true  that  God  tells  Abraham,  in  verse  11:"  And  ye 
shall  circumcise  the  flesh  of  your  foreskin  ;  and  it  shall  be  a 
token  of  the  covenant  betwixt  me  and  thee."  Now  what  is  it 
that  constitutes  the  token  in  this  case  ?  Is  it  that  part  of  the 
covenant  which  requires  circumcision  ?  Surely  not.  The  cov- 
enant was  one  thing,  and  the  execution  of  it  another,  and  a  very 
different  thing.  This  part  of  the  covenant  could  exist  without 
the  execution  of  it.  It  was  the  execution  of  this  part  of  the 
covenant,  that  constituted  the  token  of  the  entire  covenant. 
And  we  can  well  understand  how  the  executed  act  could  consti- 
tute a  token  or  record  of  the  whole  covenant ;  but  we  cannot 
well  understand  how  a  part  of  the  conditions  of  a  covenant  could 
form  a  token  of  the  covenant  itself.  God  did  not  mean  to  say, 
"  This  my  covenant  is  a  token  of  my  covenant." 

The  second  passage  in  the  third  class,  "  It  is  the  Lord's 
Passover,"  is  simply  the  name  of  the  feast. 

Before  inflicting  the  tenth  and  last  plague  upon  Egypt,  the 
Lord  instituted  the  Passover.  God  promised  Moses  and  Aaron 
that  He  would  pass  over  the  houses  of  the  Israelites  harmless, 
if  they  would  keep  the  feast.  The  twelfth  chapter  of  Exodus, 
from  the  third  to  the  eleventh  verses,  is  taken  up  in  prescribing 
the  manner  in  which  the  paschal  lamb  should  be  prepared  and 
eaten  with  bitter  herbs  ;  and  after  giving  those  particulars,  tho 
eleventh  verse  ends  with  these  words:  "Ye  shall  eat  it  in 
haste :  it  is  the  Lord's  Passover." 

The  word  Passover,  in  this  place,  refers  to  the  feast  itself 
and  not  to  the  Lord's  passage  over  the  houses.  The  language 
is  very  clear  and  simple :  "  Ye  shall  eat  it  (the  lamb  prepared 
as  just  directed  to  be  done)  in  haste  :  it  (the  same  thing)  is  the 
Lord's  Passover." 

In  the  close  of  the  eleventh  verse,  God  intended  to  give  the 
new  feast  a  name,  and  to  state  that  it  was  sacred  to  Him.  The 
feast  never  having  existed  before,  it  was  necessary  to  give  it  a 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION.  563 

name,  and  there  was  the  proper  place  to  give  it.  The  name  is 
used  for  the  first  time  in  verse  11,  and  afterwards  in  verses  21 
and  43,  to  designate  the  feast  itself,  and  as  a  term  already  well 
understood.  It  is  so  used  in  the  New  Testament.  "  Now  the 
feast  of  unleavened  bread  drew  nigh,  called  the  passover." 
(Luke  xxii.  1.  See  Matt.  xxvi.  17.) 

God  often  gave  names  to  things.  In  the  first  chapter  of 
Genesis  we  are  told  that  He  named  the  heavens  and  the  earth, 
and  in  the  second,  that  He  sanctified  the  seventh  day,  and  in 
the  twentieth  chapter  of  Exodus,  He  calls  it  the  Sabbath.  So, 
it  is  clear,  from  many  examples  in  Scripture,  that  whatever  is 
sacred  or  dedicated  to  the  Lord,  is  properly  called  "  the  Lord's." 
Thus,  in  Exodus,  chapter  20,  the  Sabbath  is  called  "  the  Sabbath 
of  the  Lord,"  or  the  Lord's  Sabbath,  and  St.  John  calls  it  "  the 
Lord's  day."  (Rev.  i.  10.  See  also  Ex.  xxxii.  5;  x?ii.  12.) 
That  the  Passover  was  sacred  to  the  Lord  is  shown  by  the  14th 
and  48th  verses  of  the  12th  chapter  of  Exodus.  "Ye  shall  keep 
it  a  feast  to  the  Lord."  "  And  when  a  stranger  will  keep  the 
passover  to  the  Lord." 

We  have  now  finished  the  consideration  of  those  alleged 
cases  of  exception  to  the  general  rule ;  and  we  have  seen  that 
the  only  cases  wherein  the  verb  to  be  is  used  in  a  figurative 
sense,  are  those  cases  where  an  explanation  of  symbolical  in- 
struction is  given.  I  have  endeavored  to  show  that  none  of 
these  passages  have  any  application  to  the  words  of  institution. 
They  are  not  cases  in  point — they  are  plainly  marked  and  dis- 
tinguished (in  most  of  the  cases  in  express  words,  and  in  all  by 
the  clear  context)  as  special  cases  not  coming  under  the  general 
rule,  but  as  clear  exceptions  to  it — and  that  the  words  of  insti- 
tution cannot  be  brought  into  this  class  of  exceptions,  for  the 
reason  there  was  no  dream — no  parable — no  allegory — and  no 
explanation  of  any  such  thing  in  these  words,  nor  in  the  circum- 
stances attending  their  utterance.  They  were  used  in  making 
our  Lord's  last  testament — in  the  solemn  institution  of  a  sacra- 
ment— and  at  a  time,  and  in  reference  to  a  subject,  where  the  use 
of  words  in  n,  new  and  unheard  of  symboh'cal  sense,  would  have 
been  certainly  as  much  out  of  place  as  we  can  possibly  imagine. 

And  I  must  think  that  if  the  question  of  construction  re- 
garded the  language  of  a  human  lawgiver  or  writer,  and  such 


564  TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 

examples,  taken  from  the  mere  interpretation  of  dreams,  para- 
bles, and  allegories,  were  brought  forward  by  any  party  for  the 
purpose  of  interpreting  language  used  in  its  plain  form,  and  not 
in  application  to  dreams,  parables,  and  allegories,  that  such  party 
would  be  considered  as  governed  by  some  strange  and  most 
singular  delusion.  And  in  reference  to  the  interpretation  of 
Scripture,  I  must  think  that  such  a  resort  arises  from  the  ex- 
treme destitution  of  materials  in  the  shape  of  parallel  passages. 
Nothing  but  the  dry  distress  of  writers  could  induce  them  to 
bring  forward  such  examples. 

And  with  all  due  deference,  I  submit  to  the  candor  of  my 
readers,  whether  these  cases  of  exception,  being  thus  so  clearly 
marked  and  designated,  as  such,  do  not  the  more  clearly  show 
the  literal  sense  of  the  words  of  institution.  He  who  seeks  to 
show  an  exception  to  the  general  rule  of  the  plain  ordinary  lit- 
eral  sense,  ought  to  make  his  case  clear,  by  showing  that  the 
passage  is  strictly  within  a  particular  class  of  exceptions.  The 
very  fact  that  all  conceded  exceptions  range  themselves  under 
one  class — namely,  the  explanation  of  symbolical  instruction,  and 
that  they  are  thus  clearly  marked  as  such — does  strengthen  the 
general  rule,  by  showing  that  no  other  exceptions  are  intended. 
Is  there,  in  the  JBible,  one  solitary  case,  where,  in  the  solemn  in- 
stitution of  a  sacrament,  or  in  making  of  a  last  testament,  lan- 
guage is  used  in  a  new  and  unexplained  symbolical  sense  ? 

§14.   Giving  the  name  of  the  thing  represented  to  the  figure. 

This  is  one  of  the  most  popular  objections  against  the  literal 
sense  of  the  words,  "  This  is  my  body."  It  is  relied  upon  by 
Protestant  writers  generally.  The  examples  cited  are,  a  pic- 
ture, a  map,  or  bust.  If  we  point  to  a  portrait  or  bust,  and 
say  "  this  is  "  such  a  person,  naming  him,  or  if  we  point  to  a 
map,  and  say  "  this  is  Europe,"  we  are  at  once  understood. 

Portraits,  busts,  and  maps  are  representations  by  resemblance. 
They  are  but  images  of  the  things  they  represent.  Symbol  is 
the  very  essence  of  their  existence.  They  can  only  exist  as 
symbols.  This  fact  is  known  to  all.  Common  usage  is  always 
founded  upon  common  sense,  and  this  never  requires  the  doing 
of  an  idle  thing.  Therefore,  when  we  point  to  a  picture,  we 
are  not  required  to  idly  inform  the  person  whom  we  address, 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION.  565 

that  it  is  a  picture.  His  own  senses  assure  him  of  that  fact. 
But  as  he  does  not  know  the  person  or  thing  represented,  we 
must  inform  him  of  this  fact. 

But  the  case  under  consideration  is  wholly  different.  Ac- 
cording to  the  Protestant  view,  Christ  was  for  the  first  time 
constituting  bread  a  symbol  of  His  body.  There  being  not  the 
slightest  natural  resemblance  between  the  figure  and  the  object, 
and  bread  having  an  independent  existence  as  a  real  object  in 
itself,  arid  not  as  a  figure,  it  was  just  as  necessary  to  inform  us 
of  the  fact  that  it  was  then  made  a  figure,  as  to  inform  us  of  the 
thing  it  represented.  When  an  arbitrary  figure  is  first  consti- 
tuted such,  no  one  can  know  that  it  is  a  figure  at  all,  unless  so 
informed. 

If  a  speaker  should  use  a  known  term  in  a  new  figurative 
sense  for  the  first  time,  he  should  give  us  a  definition  of  this 
new  sense.  Thus,  when  our  Lord  instituted  the  Sacrament  of 
the  Last  Supper,  and,  for  the  first  time,  made  it  commemora- 
tive. He  was  careful  to  inform  us  of  that  fact.  "  Do  this  in  re- 
membrance of  me."  If,  then,  the  bread  was  used  for  the  first 
time  on  that  occasion  to  be  a  figure  of  the  body  of  Christ,  why 
did  He  not  so  inform  us  ?  Why  inform  us  in  one  case,  and  not 
in  the  other?  Is  not  the  fact  that  upon  that  occasion  He  did 
so  inform  us  in  one  case,  and  not  in  the  other,  a  very  strong 
proof  that  the  two  cases  are  not  alike  f 

This  objection  is  founded  upon  the  same  basis  as  that  drawn 
from  symbolical  instruction.  It  is  but  an  attempt  to  apply  the 
language  used  in  the  explanation  of  pictures,  to  the  interpreta- 
tion of  positive  forms  of  expression,  not  relating  to  any  such 
thing.  The  symbolical  characters  in  mysteries,  parables,  allego- 
ries, and  dreams  are  all  stated  to  be  fictitious,  and  a  picture  is 
known  to  be  but  an  image,  because  it  can  be  nothing  else  ;  and 
when  we  come  to  point  out  the  thing  represented,  which  has  a 
real,  or  assumed  real,  existence,  usage  allows  us  to  use  the  verb 
to  be  in  a  figurative  sense,  because  we  are  speaking  of  things 
first  admitted  to  be  figurative.  But  in  reference  to  the  bread, 
we  are  not  told  that  it  was  figurative — there  was  no  resem- 
blance, such  as  a  picture  has  to  the  thing  represented — how, 
then,  could  we  know  it  was  a  figure  ? 

Another  objection  which  is   sometimes   made,  is,  that   uo 


566  TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 

change  could  be  admitted,  because  our  Saviour  called  the  con 
tents  of  the  cup,  "  the  fruit  of  the  vine."  This  difficulty  is  en 
tirely  avoided  by  the  explanation  of  St.  Luke,  as  referring-  to 
the  cup  before  the  institution  of  the  Eucharist.  It  refers  to  the 
paschal  cup,  and  not  to  the  sacramental.  This  is  shown  by  the 
simple  narrative  itself.  Christ  eat  the  passover  to  close  the 
sacrifice  of  the  old  law,  and  then,  after  supper,  instituted  the 
Eucharist. 

§  15.  The  Words  of  St.  Paul. 

St.  Paul  in  his  first  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  speaks  in  two 
places  of  the  Eucharist.  As  the  two  translations  differ  in  one 
material  point,  I  shall  give  both. 

1  Cor.  x.  16. 

"  The   cup  of  blessing  which    we  "  The  chalice  of  benediction  which 

bless,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  we  bless,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the 

blood  of   Christ?     The   bread  which  blood   of    Christ?      And    the    bread 

we  break,  is  it    not  the    communion  which  we  break,  is  it  not  the  partak- 

of  the  body  of  Christ  ?  "     (King  Jas.  ing  of  the  body  of  the  Lord."     (Douay 

Tran.)  Tran.) 

1  Cor%xi.  27,  29. 

"  Wherefore,  whosoever    shall   eat  "  Therefore,  whoever  shall  eat  this 

this  bread,    and   drink  this   cup    un-  bread,    or  drink   the    chalice  of   the 

worthily,  shall  be  guilty  of  the  body  Lord  unworthily,  shall  be  guilty  of  the 

and  blood  of  the  Lord.    .  .  .  For  he  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord.  .  .  .  For 

that  eateth  and  drinketh  unworthily,  he  that  eateth  and  rlrinketh   unwor- 

eateth    and    drinketh    damnation    to  thily,  eateth   and    drinketh  judgment 

himself,  not  discerning  the  body  of  the  to  himself,  not  discerning  the  body  of 

Lord."  the  Lord." 

"  The  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ."  The  word  com- 
munion is  here  used  in  the  sense  of  partaking,  as  shown  by  the 
two  succeeding  verses.  There  is  then  a  real  partaking  here, 
and  not  a  figurative  eating.  In  the  6th  of  John  the  words  "  eat 
the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  man,"  the  Protestant  says,  means  a 
figurative  eating,  and  in  this  extract  it  means  an  actual  partak- 
ing of  the  bread,  and  not  of  the  body.  In  the  sixth  of  John 
the  real  flesh  was  meant,  but  not  the  real  eating.  Here  the 
real  eating  is  meant  but  not  the  real  body.  The  Catholic  under- 
stands that  it  was  a  real  eating,  and  a  real  flesh  and  body,  in 


TRAN8UBSTANTIATION.  567 

both  cases  /  and  certainly  this  construction  is  the  most  simple, 
natural,  and  consistent. 

If  the  words  body  and  blood  are  used  in  the  first  extract 
from  St.  Paul  in  their  literal  sense,  the  Catholic  is  right.  So,  if 
the  sixth  of  John  refers  to  the  Eucharist,  the  word  flesh  being 
used  in  its  literal  sense  in  verse  52,  the  equivalent  word  body 
in  the  extract  from  St.  Paul,  should  be  used  in  the  same  literal 
sense.  For  if  the  Scripture  in  these  different  places  refers  to 
the  same  thing,  the  words  should  be  taken  in  their  literal  sense 
in  both  places. 

Our  Lord  having  instituted  the  Eucharist  before  St.  Paul 
wrote,  there  is  nothing  inconsistent  with  the  Catholic  view,  in 
the  language  of  the  apostle,  as  to  "eating  the  bread"  and 
drinking  "  the  cup ; "  because  the  practice  of  still  calling  a 
thing,  after  its  change,  by  its  former  name,  is  very  common  in 
Scripture.  This  would  be  particularly  so,  when  the  appearances 
were  still  the  same.  When  the  sense  is  once  settled,  the  term 
will  afterwards  be  used  in  that  sense.  Joseph  was  repeatedly 
called  the  father  of  our  Lord.  (Luke  ii.  41,  48.)  And  yet  no 
one  was  misled  by  this,  because  we  are  informed  in  preceding 
places,  that  Joseph  was  only  His  foster-father.  So,  when  the 
water  was  changed  into  wine,  it  was  still  called  water  after  the 
change.*  So,  when  the  eyes  of  the  blind  man  had  been  opened, 
he  was  afterwards  still  called  the  "blind  man."  (John  ix.  17.) 
So,  when  Aaron's  rod  had  been  changed  into  a  serpent,  it  was 
still  called  a  rod.  (Gen.  viii.)  So,  the  angels  that  came  to  Lot 
were  called  men  in  some  places,  and  angels  in  another.  They 
were  called  men  after  they  were  stated  to  be  angels.  (Gen.  xix.) 
Things  in  Scripture  are  often  represented  according  to  their  ap- 
pearance. Joshua  is  represented  as  commanding  the  sun  to 
stand  still,  and  the  sun  as  obeying  him.  So  the  Catholic  con- 
tinues to  call  the  elements  bread  and  wine  after  consecration, 
and  yet  he  believes  in  the  change. 

But  what  will  we  do  with  the  wrord  body  in  the  first  extract 
from  St.  Paul  ?  If  we  construe  it  literally,  and  say  that  it  was 

*  John  ii.  The  word  "  draw  "  means  the  breaching  of  the  water  pots,  after 
the  change.  Our  Saviour  said  to  the  servants  after  the  change,  and  before  they 
drew  out  the  wine,  "  draw  out  now,"  &c  ,  and  this  is  the  only  drawing  mentioned. 
"  The  servants  which  drew  tho  water  knew."  * 


568  TKANSUBSTANTIATION. 

a  literal  partaking  of  a  real  body,  then  the  sense  is  entirely  con 
sistent  with  the  Catholic  view.  In  the  first  extract  the  apostle 
says  "  communion  of  the  body,"  and  in  the  second  "  guilty  of 
the  body,"  "not  discerning  the  body."  Now  if  the  word  body 
be  used  figuratively  in  one  of  these  places,  must  it  not  be  used 
in  the  same  sense  in  the  other  passages  ?  Is  it  not  used  in  all 
the  three  cases  to  designate  the  real  body  ? 

"  Guilty  of  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord."  What  is  the 
meaning  of  this  phrase,  as  shown  by  Scripture  usage  ?  "  He  is 
guilty  of  death ;  "  referring  to  the  punishment.  (Matt.  xxvi.  66.) 
"  For  whosoever  shall  keep  the  whole  law,  and  yet  offend  in  one 
point,  he  is  guilty  of  all."  (St.  James  ii.  10.)  This  case  from  St. 
James  is  the  only  parallel  case  in  the  New  Testament.  Here  the 
phrase  is  applied  to  the  object  against  which  the  offence  was 
committed.  In  like  manner  the  offence  of  an  unworthy  com- 
munion is  against  the  body  of  our  Lord.  So,  if  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ  be  present  in  the  Eucharist,  we  can  well  see  how 
St.  Paul  could  use  the  expression  "  guilty  of  the  body  and 
blood." 

"  Not  discerning  the  Lord's  body."  We  are  first  told  by 
St.  Paul,  that  the  party  is  guilty  of  the  body  ;  and  then  after- 
wards we  are  told  that  he  drinks  judgment  to  himself,  not  dis- 
cerning the  body.  If  the  body  be  not  present,  how  could  it  be 
discerned  ?  But  if  the  body  be  present,  and  be  received  as  pro- 
fane food,  then  we  can  well  understand  how  the  unworthy  com- 
municant would  not  discern  the  body. 

It  would  seem  that  the  passages  from  St.  Paul  are  not  only 
consistent  with  the  Catholic  view,  but  that  the  literal  sense  can 
alone  give  them  their  legitimate  force  and  effect.  And  when 
the  language  of  St.  Paul  is  taken  in  connection  with  that  of 
Christ  in  the  sixth  of  John,  and  in  the  subsequent  words  of  in- 
stitution, the  unity,  simplicity,  and  force  of  the  Catholic  view, 
can  be  seen  at  once.  We  have  one  united  and  consistent  view, 
running  through  a  number  of  passages,  and  harmonizing  with 
the  whole,  and  forming  one  plain  and  simple  system  of  interpre- 
tation. The  arguments  in  support  of  Christianity,  when  taken 
and  considered  separately,  are  not  so  strong  and  conclusive  as 
when  united.  Like  the  ten  thousand  small  streams,  that,  sepa- 
rately considered,  are  insignificant,  yet  when  united,  form  the 


TBANSUBSTANTIATION.  569 

mighty  river,  r oiling  its  resistless  volume  to  the  ocean  :  so,  the 
arguments  for  Christianity,  when  taken  separately  may  be  in- 
conclusive, yet  when  united  and  considered  as  a  whole,  they 
pour  their  combined  proof  in  one  overpowering  stream  upon 
the  mind.  In  like  manner,  the  proofs  of  that  wonderful  doc- 
trine, the  Real  Presence,  when  taken  separately,  are  not  so  con- 
clusive as  when  combined  and  viewed  in  their  concentrated 
force.  It  is  then  that  the  harmonious  and  beautiful  features  of 
that  tender  and  sublime  faith  appear  in  their  united  consistency. 
And  so  strong  are  the  proofs  from  the  most  simple  and  un- 
equivocal construction  of  the  language  of  the  Scriptures,  that 
if  the  doctrine  was  not  so  hard  to  flesh  and  blood,  it  would  seem 
that  there  never  could  have  existed  any  doubt  upon  the  subject. 

§  16.   That  it  is  a  contradiction  of  our  senses,  and  impossible. 

These  objections  are  much  relied  upon  by  most  Protestant 
writers,  such  as  Mr.  Hallam,  Dr.  Clark,  Mr.  Home,  Dr.  Tom- 
line,  and  others.  Mr.  Faber  objects  to  this  mode  of  treating 
the  subject  and  says:  "  Contradictions  we  can  easily  fancy, 
when,  in  truth,  there  are  none."  Again  :  "  The  contradiction 
may  not  be  in  the  matter  itself,  but  in  our  mode  of  conceiving 
it."  (Difficulties  of  Romanism,  54.) 

This  is  certainly  very  candid  and  manly  language,  and  one 
well  becoming  every  humble  and  firm  believer  in  the  truth  of 
Christianity.  But  notwithstanding  this  acknowledgment  of  the 
learned  and  courteous  author,  it  must  be  conceded  that  he  has 
given  up  the  most  effective  of  the  arguments  against  the  literal 
sense.  In  saying  effective,  I  do  not  mean  an  argument  that 
should  be  effective,  but  only  one  that  is  practically  so.  It  is 
an  argument  based  upon  the  all-sufficiency  of  human  reason  to 
judge  of  every  thing ;  and,  therefore,  is  addressed  to  the  pride 
of  the  human  heart,  in  which  it  finds  an  ever-ready  echo.  And 
the  fact  of  its  being  addressed  to  pride,  should  cause  it  to  be 
watched  with  the  greatest  care  by  the  sincere  and  humble. 

Mr.  Home  tells  us  that  "  whatever  is  repugnant  to  natural 
reason  cannot  be  the  true  meaning  of  the  Scriptures." 

In  what  essential  particular  does  this  assumption  differ  from 
the  very  basis  upon  which  the  Infidel  stands  ?  They  are  both 
founded  upon  the  supposed  sufficiency  of  human  reason  to  de- 


570  TKANSUBSTANTIATION 

termine  the  essential  laws  of  matter,  and  the  rules  by  which 
God  should  govern  the  world,  and  the  limits  of  His  power. 
The  Infidel  takes  the  Scriptures,  and  gives  them  what  he  thinks 
a  natural  and  proper  construction,  and  he  finds  therein  stated, 
facts  and  doctrines  at  war  with  his  reason  and  his  experience  ; 
and  he,  therefore,  rejects  the  entire  system.  But  Mr.  Home  is 
less  clear,  and  not  so  consistent.  He  first  admits  that  the 
Scriptures  are  true — that  they  reveal  stupendous  mysteries, 
proven  by  stupendous  miracles ;  and  after  these  admissions, 
whatever  construction,  however  plain,  simple,  and  natural,  which 
evolves  a  doctrine  "  repugnant  to  natural  reason,"  or  what  he 
may  consider  such,  he  rejects.  In  other  words,  he  prunes  off 
all  absurd  shoots  from  the  tree  of  Christianity,  until  he  brings 
it  to  that  form  of  abstract  ideal  beauty,  existing  in  his  own 
mind.  The  Infidel,  upon  the  basis  of  the  sufficiency  of  his  rea- 
son to  determine  what  is  possible  with  God,  and  what  sort  of 
government  God  ought  to  give  to  man,  rejects  the  entire  sys- 
tem. Not  so  with  Mr.  Home.  He  admits  the  system,  but 
tears  it  into  fragments,  and  then  selects  only  such  as  may  suit 
his  "  natural  reason." 

There  are  certainly  some  things  more  properly  within  the 
sphere  of  human  reason.  The  weight  and  force  of  human  testi- 
mony is  a  matter  coming  peculiarly  within  the  province  of  man's 
intellect.  He  ought  to  know  the  habits,  feelings,  and  character 
of  his  own  species,  with  whom  he  is  identified  in  all  his  natural 
powers,  and  with  whom  he  is  in  constant  intercourse.  He  may 
also  have  a  perfect  knowledge  of  some  of  the  laws  of  nature, 
while  he  is  ignorant  of  others ;  and  aided  by  his  knowledge  of 
the  more  obvious  and  well-known  laws  of  nature,  he  is  compe- 
tent to  determine  that  a  certain  event  is  miraculous,  and  that 
the  person  who  performed  it  is  gifted  with  supernatural  power. 
But  when  misled  by  the  "  meteor  ray "  of  reason,  he  quits  his 
own  sphere,  and  rushes  "  into  the  skies,"  and  assumes  to  set 
limits  to  the  power  of  God,  he  deserves  the  severe  language  of 
Pope: 

"  Go,  wond'rous  creature,  mount  where  science  guides ; 
Go,  measure  earth,  weigh  air,  and  state  the  tides. 
Go,  teach  Eternal  Wisdom  how  to  rule, 
Then  drop  into  thyself,  and  be  a  fool." 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION.  571 

We  shall  proceed  to  examine  these  arguments  at  one  view, 
for  they  are  all  essentially  based  upon  the  same  principle ;  i.  e., 
the  ground  of  physical  impossibility. 

We  have  already  spoken  of  known  miracles,  as  being  viola- 
tions or  suspensions  of  the  known  laws  of  nature.  We  find, 
as  a  part  of  the  known  laws  of  nature,  that  two  substances 
cannot  occupy  the  same  space  at  the  same  time,  and  that 
the  same  body  cannot  occupy  different  spaces  at  the  same 
time.  If  we  should  see  a  single  body  occupy  different  spaces, 
or  two  bodies  the  same  space,  at  the  same  time,  we  are  compe- 
tent to  say  that  it  is  a  miracle.  But  while  we  could  well  say 
that  such  an  event  was  a  miracle,  could  we  undertake  to  say 
that  such  an  event  is  impossible  ¥  There  is  an  immeasurable 
distance  between  the  two !  In  one  we  only  undertake  to  deter- 
mine what  is  consistent  with  the  present  known  laws  of  nature; 
but  in  the  other,  we  assume  to  put  limits  to  the  Eternal.  What 
ideas  have  mere  finite  beings  of  Infinite  Power  ?  Just  in  the 
same  proportion  as  finite  to  infinite — as  time  to  eternity. 

The  Protestant  philosopher  admits  that  God  spoke  the 
world  into  existence  from  nothing — that  miracles  are  not  only 
Upossible,  but  have  occurred — yet  when  told  that  the  same  Infi- 
nite Creator  can  suspend,  modify,  overcome,  or  change  any  of 
the  laws  of  nature,  and  can  give  to  a  body  some  of  the  proper- 
ties of  a  spirit,  he  objects,  upon  the  ground  of  impossibility. 
He  concedes  that  some  of  the  laws  of  matter  are  within  the 
power  of  God,  but  insists  that  others  are  not.  And  such  objec- 
tion is  simply  based  upon  the  results  of  his  limited  experience 
of  an  existing  system ;  when  he  knows  absolutely  nothing  of 
mere  possible  systems  /  and  could  not,  therefore,  justly  pretend 
to  form  any  accurate  conception  concerning  them. 

The  properties  of  matter  were  given  it  by  the  Creator,  when 
He  formed  the  universe  from  nothing.  He  who  made,  surely 
can  destroy,  suspend,  or  change.  If  God  can  take  from  matter 
one  property,  or  overcome  or  suspend,  for  the  time,  its  effect, 
upon  what  principle  of  reason  can  we  say  that  He  cannot  do  so 
in  reference  to  another,  or  to  several?  We  believe  that  God 
created  spirits.  These  we  consider  not  subject  to  the  laws  of 
matter.  The  Atheist  rejects  the  belief  in  the  existence  of  the 
soul,  because  the  eye  and  knife  of  the  surgeon  cannot  detect  its 


572  TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 

seat  in  the  human  brain.  And  he  does  this  notwithstanding 
he  knows  we  have  no  accurate  conceptions  of  the  magnitude  or 
minuteness  of  organized  bodies.  He  knows  that  minute  insects 
exist,  with  perfect  organizations,  hundreds  of  which  can  sport 
in  a  single  drop  of  water ;  and  that  the  flea,  when  examined  by 
a  microscope,  appears  a  horrid  monster,  of  enormous  size.  The 
Protestant  believes  that  Satan  is  a  created,  but  fallen  spirit ; 
that  he  tempts  men  in  Europe,  Asia,  America,  and  Africa,  at 
the  same  time.  Now,  upon  what  principle  of  reason  or  philoso- 
phy can  we  say  that  God  has  power  over  some  of  the  properties 
of  matter,  and  not  over  all  ?  If  God  can  create  a  spirit,  could 
He  not  impress  a  portion  or  the  whole  of  its  properties  upon  a 
body,  and  overcome  or  suspend  some  or  all  of  the  properties  of 
matter,  at  the  same  time  ?  In  other  words,  could  riot  God,  by 
His  infinite  power,  take  from  a  body,  or  overcome,  for  the 
time,  that  property  which  prevents  it  from  occupying  two  or 
more  places  at  the  same  time  ?  Who  is  that  philosopher  who 
would  venture  to  say  that  Christ,  who  raised  His  own  body 
from  the  grave,  could  not  give  that  body  the  property  in  ques- 
tion ?  Can  any  man,  with  all  his  pride  of  intellect,  have  suffi- 
cient confidence  in  his  imaginary  knowledge  of  mere  possible* 
systems,  as  to  put  it  against  the  assertion  of  God  ?  * 

If  our  knowledge  of  the  existing  laws  of  matter  ought  to 
have  any  effect  upon  our  ideas  of  physical  possibility  or  impos- 
sibility with  God,  then  I  must  say,  that  the  position  of  the 

*  There  are  metaphysical,  but  no  physical,  impossibilities  with  God.  The 
former  result  from  the  unchangeable  character  of  His  attributes.  When  the  In- 
fidel alleges  truly  that  God  could  not  make  two  hills  without  a  valley  between, 
the  impossibility  is  metaphysical,  not  physical.  The  valley  is  a,  part  of  the  two 
hills,  and  it  is  metaphysically  impossible  for  God  to  do  and  not  to  do,  the  same 
thing  at  the  same  time.  But  all  material  things  were  created  by  God,  and  He 
has,  for  that  reason,  perfect  and  unlimited  physical  dominion  over  them  to  do  any 
thing  He  pleases  that  is  not,  in  its  effects,  contrary  to  His  own  natiire.  The 
presence  of  Christ's  body  in  the  Eucharist  cannot  be  against  the  character  of 
God,  and  cannot  be  physically  impossible.  In  Scripture,  we  are  assured  of 
metaphysical  impossibilities  with  God,  but  it  would  be  difficult  to  find  any  inti- 
mation that  there  could  be  any  physical  impossibility  with  Him.  On  the  con- 
trary, our  Lord,  when  speaking  of  a  supposed  physical  impossibility,  declared  that 
"  all  things  are  possible  with  God."  '1  here  is  no  limit  to  this  general  declara- 
tion, and  no  qualification  of  it,  as  applicable  to  the.  das*  of  possibility  our  Lord 
bad  in  Hia  mind,  when  using  these  broad  words. 


TBANSUBSTANTIATION.  578 

Atheist  is  more  consistent  than  that  of  those  who  first  concede 
that  God  can  control  some  of  the  laws  of  matter,  and  then  deny 
His  power  over  others.  The  Atheist  lays  down  a  consistent 
rule,  when  he  will  admit  of  no  interference  with  the  laws  of 
matter.  But  the  Protestant  philosopher  admits  the  power  of 
God  over  the  subject  matter,  and  then  presumes  to  set  limits  to 
the  power  itself. 

That  the  Real  Presence  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist  is  a  most 
incomprehensible  mystery,  and  a  most  stupendous  miracle,  must 
be  conceded.  It  is  like  any  other  mystery.  Human  reason 
cannot  fathom  mysteries.  If  it  could,  it  could  fathom  every 
thing.  There  could  then  be  no  limits  to  its  power.  We  should 
be  as  wise  as  our  Creator.  No  man  can  comprehend  the  mys- 
terious union  of  the  human  and  Divine  in  Christ.  Had  I  waited 
until  I  could  comprehend  that  mystery,  I  should  never  have 
been  a  Christian. 

There  are  many  of  the  most  familiar  facts  that  we  cannot 
comprehend.  How  is  it  that  a  single  spark  will  set  on  fire  and 
consume  a  whole  city?  How  does  the  fire  increase?  How 
is  it  that  the  simple  will  of  a  man  will  put  into  instant 
motion  all  his  muscular  powers,  and  at  once  overcome  some 
of  the  cardinal  laws  of  matter?  How  is  it  that  the  heart, 
from  our  birth  to  our  death,  never  ceases  its  pulsations  day 
or  night?  What  power  keeps  it  going?  How  is  it  that 
the  moment  the  mysterious  principle  of  life  is  extinguished,  our 
bodies  become  like  any  other  inert  mass  of  matter  ?  I  suppose, 
if  an  individual  was  brought  up  on  a  solitary  island,  with  no 
opportunity  to  see  or  hear  of  a  single  instance  of  death,  that  at 
the  age  of  thirty,  he  would  have  no  conception  of  death,  and 
would  think  it  impossible,  if  suggested  to  him.  Even  with  our 
conclusive  knowledge  of  the  fact,  people  in  health  never  feel 
like  dying,  and  most  of  them  act  as  if  they  never  expected  to 
die.  The  idea  of  death  is  not  intuitive,  but  acquired. 

How  to  explain  the  mystery  of  the  Trinity  I  cannot  tell. 
But  on  the  other  hand,  I  cannot  see  how  I  can  reject  the  belief 
of  this  great  mystery,  without  holding  Christ  to  be  a  mere  im- 
postor. Nor  can  I  understand  how  He  could  be  either  a  Me- 
diator or  Redeemer,  unless  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  be  true. 
The  doctrine  of  original  sin  presents  many  difficulties ;  but  re* 


574  TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 

ject  it,  and  then  I  cannot  understand  how  Christ  could  be  a 
Redeemer  at  all,  or  what  He  had  to  redeem  us  from.  Take 
away  any  of  these  doctrines,  and  we  have  but  the  shadow  of 
Christianity  left.  The  confident  Socinian  thinks  that  the  ab- 
surdity of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  mathematically  demon- 
strable. But  all  this,  against  the  clear  revelation  of  Jesus 
Christ,  does  not  amount  to  any  thing.  We  find  ourselves  too 
often  mistaken  in  reference  to  abstract  matters  to  rely  with  any 
confidence  upon  our  weak  ideas  of  such  things. 

The  evidence  of  some  of  our  senses  in  receiving  the  Eucha- 
rist, ought  not,  any  more  than  our  abstract  ideas  of  possibility, 
to  influence  us  to  doubt  a  revealed  truth,  especially  a  mystery. 
It  may  be  a  theme  for  ignorant  ridicule  or  senseless  declama- 
tion, but  will  hardly  stand  the  test  of  theological  or  scientific 
truth.  Philosophy  and  experience  teach  us  that  some  of  our 
senses  at  times  deceive  us. 

We  are  told  that  the  Holy  Spirit  descended  upon  our  Lord 
in  the  form  of  a  dove.  To  the  eye  it  was  a  dove,  and  had  every 
appearance  of  a  dove ;  and  yet  we  believe  it  was  not  a  dove. 
So,  the  Jews  rejected  Christ  upon  the  evidence  of  some  of  their 
senses.  They  said,  "  Is  not  this  Jesus,  the  son  of  Joseph,  whose 
father  and  mother  we  know?  How  is  it,  then,  that  he  saith,  I 
came  down  from  heaven  ?  "  "  In  like  manner  Joshua  thought 
he  saw  a  man,  (Joshua  v.  13,)  and  Jacob  that  he  touched  one, 
(Gen.  xxxii.  24,)  and  Abraham,  that  he  eat  with  three  men, 
(Gen.  xviii.  8,)  when  in  all  these  instances  there  were  no  real 
men  but  embodied  spirits  present,  the  different  senses  of  those 
patriarchs  misleading  them.  Again :  were  not  the  eyes  of  the 
disciples  going  to  Emmaus  held  so  that  they  should  not  know 
Jesus?  (Luke  xxiv.  16.)  Did  not  the  same  thing  happen  to 
Mary  Magdalen  and  the  apostles?"  (John  xx.  15.)  (Dr.  Mil- 
ner.  End.  Con.,  234.) 

After  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  we  are  told  that  He  ap- 
peared twice  to  His  disciples  when  the  doors  were  shut  for  fear 
of  the  Jews.  (Jo.  xx.  19,  26.)  The  circumstance  of  the  doors 
being  shut,  is  mentioned  to  let  us  know  that  His  sudden  appear- 
ance was  miraculous.  How  did  His  body  pass  through  the  wall 
or  door  ?  It  might  be  that  He  made  an  opening,  and  closed  it 
again  after  His  entrance ;  but  this  does  not  seem  to  be  consist- 


.  TRANSUBSTANTIATION.  575 

ent  with  other  circumstances.  After  travelling  with  the  two 
disciples  to  Emmaus,  while  their  eyes  were  holden,  He  opened 
them  in  the  breaking  of  bread,  and  after  their  eyes  were  opened 
and  they  knew  Him,  "  he  vanished  out  of  their  sight."  (Luke 
xxiv.  31.)  He  again  appeared  to  many  disciples,  and  from  the 
simple  narrative,  it  would  seem  plain  that  the  first  they  saw  of 
Christ,  He  was  standing  in  their  midst.  "And  as  they  thus 
spake,  Jesus  stood  in  the  midst  of  them."  (36.)  Not  only  this 
language,  but  the  circumstance  of  their  terror,  goes  to  show 
that  He  was  not  seen  until  He  was  seen  standing  in  their  midst. 
Now  when  He  vanished  out  of  the  sight  of  the  two  disciples  at 
Emmaus,  it  is  clear  that  they  had  their  senses,  and  that  Christ 
rendered  His  body  invisible.  So  when  He  appeared  in  their 
midst. 

It  is  true,  that  in  the  Eucharist,  there  are  more  senses  than 
one  deceived ;  and  that  in  some  of  the  cases  mentioned,  it  was 
equally  so.  The  dove  was  only  subjected  to  the  test  of  sight. 
But  in  the  case  of  the  angel  that  spoke  and  wrestled  with  Jacob, 
and  those  that  spoke  and  eat  before  Abraham,  more  than  one 
sense  was  deceived.  So,  in  the  case  of  the  Jews  regarding 
Christ.  And  in  regard  to  the  two  angels  that  appeared  to  Lot, 
(Gen.  xix.,)  and  spoke  with  him,  and  eat  before  him,  and  caught 
hold  of  his  hands,  there  were  three  senses  deceived.  They 
looked  like  men,  spoke  like  men,  and  felt  like  men ;  so  that 
sight,  hearing,  and  feeling  were  all  deceived,  as  well  as  in  the 
case  of  the  angel  that  wrestled  with  Jacob.  What,  then,  is  the 
essential  difference  in  the  cases  ?  Why  should  the  Christian 
say  one  is  possible,  the  other  not  ? 

I  would  not  dare  to  assert  that  it  was  impossible  for  God  to 
make  known  to  us  His  will,  even  against  the  evidence  of  all 
our  senses.  But  in  the  Eucharist  all  the  senses  are  not  deceived. 
If,  therefore,  God,  as  in  the  cases  mentioned,  deceived  a  portion 
of  our  senses,  and  yet  conveyed  to  us  the  truth  through  the 
sense  of  hearing,  why  cannot  this  be  true  of  the  Eucharist  ?  I 
most  readily  admit  that  I  cannot  perceive  any  difference  in  the 
two  cases.  Such  an  objection  is  consistent  in  the  mouth  of  an 
Atheist,  but  out  of  place  in  the  mouth  of  him  who  professes  t  > 
believe  in  the  Scriptures. 

But  should  I  think  that  such  an  objection  had  any  reason  in 


576  TRANSUBSTAOTIATION. 

it,  when  applied  to  Christianity,  (that  wonderful  system,  founded 
and  based  upon,  and  proved  by,  miracles  of  almost  every  kind 
and  form,)  I  should  then  be  placed  in  a  painful  position,  between 
two  difficulties  ;  for  if  I  take  the  Protestant  view,  I  am  thrown 
upon  a  difficulty,  still  more  inconsistent  with  all  my  conceptions 
of  possibility  and  impossibility.  In  such  a  case  I  am  forced  to 
attribute  to  our  Lord  a  course  of  conduct  and  teaching  not  only 
at  war  with  all  my  ideas  of  what  is  just  and  proper  in  a  law- 
giver, not  only  to  himself,  but  to  his  subjects ;  but  especially 
inconsistent  with  all  my  conceptions  of  Christ  as  a  Divine  Legis- 
lator. We  are  assured  in  Scripture  that  there  are  moral  impos- 
sibilities with  God,  for  He  cannot  lie ;  and  I  am  forced  to  choose 
between  that  which  I  cannot  justify,  upon  any  conceivable 
ground  of  moral  right,  and  that  mere  abstract  objection  to  the 
literal  sense,  founded  upon  our  uncertain  knowledge  of  what  is 
or  is  not  a  physical  impossibility  with  God.  Which  difficulty 
shall  I  choose  ?  If  I  take  the  Catholic  view,  and  should  be 
mistaken,  I  only  give  to  Christ  more  power  and  love  than  are 
due  to  Him.  But  if  I  take  the  other  view,  and  should  be  mis- 
taken,  I  not  only  rob  Him  of  the  power  and  love  due  to  Him, 
but  I  place  Him  in  a  position  as  a  teacher  of  truth,  wholly  at 
war  with  all  our  conceptions  of  moral  right.  If  I  am  to  err  at 
all,  O  !  let  me  err  on  the  side  of  faith  and  love.  I  would  rather 
give  Christ  too  much  than  too  little  power.  I  would  rather  be- 
lieve too  much  than  too  little.  If  I  am  to  err,  let  my  errors 
"  lean  to  virtue's  side."  If  I  take  the  Catholic  view,  I  find  a 
great  physical  mystery,  which  I  can  believe,  but  which  is  incom- 
prehensible. If  I  take  the  Protestant  view,  I  find  a  moral  mys- 
tery, that  my  reason  cannot  justify  or  explain. 

And  were  I  to  indulge  my  reason  as  to  what  a  religion  should 
be,  I  would  ask,  what  would  religion  be  worth  without  myste- 
ries? What  heavenly  principle  is  there  in  that  proud  faith  that 
refuses  to  believe  in  mysteries,  because  incomprehensible  to 
fallible  reason  ?  And  what  reason  is  there  in  the  supposition 
that  a  fallible  mind  can  comprehend  the  nature  of  mysteries  ? 
Were  a  being  to  appear  to  me  for  the  purpose  of  teaching  me 
a  religion,  the  first  thing  my  reason  tells  me  I  have  a  right  to 
ask,  is  a  sufficient  proof  of  his  character.  As  I  am  competent  to 
judge  of  testimony,  and  to  determine  from  my  knowledge  of 


TRAN8UBSTANTIATION.  577 

some  of  the  laws  of  nature,  whether  a  particular  event  be  a 
miracle  or  not,  I  could  form  a  conclusion  as  to  the  fact  whether 
the  messenger  was  sent  of  God,  or  whether  he  was  an  impostor. 
When  satisfied  that  he  was  divinely  commissioned,  I  should  be 
prepared  to  believe  him  upon  his  word  alone.  Knowing  my 
own  limited  powers,  I  should  expect  him  to  reveal  to  me  many 
plain  and  simple  facts  and  doctrines,  regulating  my  conduct 
towards  my  fellow-men  on  earth  ;  but  in  reference  to  the  heav- 
enly world,  and  the  nature  of  the  blessed  spirits  who  inhabit  it, 
and  the  nature  of  God  and  His  institutions,  I  should  expect  Him 
to  reveal  to  me  some  incomprehensible  mysteries,  which  He 
would  rightfully  require  me  to  believe  implicitly  upon  His  word 
alone.  If  He  revealed  to  me  no  truth  or  mystery  above  my 
finite  comprehension,  I  should  be  tempted  to  doubt  whether  he 
knew  any  thing  supernatural,  and  whether  he  had  come  from 
that  heaven  which  even  the  learned,  eloquent,  and  inspired  Paul 
would  not  attempt  to  describe. 

§  17.  Reflections. 

And  while  I  readily  and  cheerfully  admit  that  there  is  a 
mystery  and  a  miracle  in  the  Real  Presence,  and  that  I  cannot 
comprehend  the  mere  manner  of  this  mystery,  I  can  see  in  the 
institution  itself  the  utmost  reason,  beauty,  and  love.  In  other 
words,  I  can  see  the  best  reasons  for  its  institution,  the  greatest 
beauty  in  its  doctrine,  and  the  utmost  display  of  love  in  its  ad- 
ministration. 

Who  ever  has  read  the  Bible,  and  has  any  tolerable  knowl- 
edge of  God's  dealings  with  His  servants,  must  have  been  struck 
with  the  fact,  that  He  often  tested  their  faith  in  the  most  severe 
and  conclusive  form.  These  tests  were  not  designed  for  the  in- 
formation of  God,  but  for  the  benefit  of  His  servants.  It  is 
right  and  beneficent,  in  the  nature  of  the  relation  of  servant  and 
master,  that  the  fidelity,  of  the  servant  should  be  submitted  to  a 
conclusive  test.  It  is  good  for  the  servant  himself,  especially 
when  his  eternal  welfare  depends  upon  his  strict  fidelity. 

Under  the  Old  dispensation,  when  the  Almighty  appeared 

to  His  prophets,  at  intervals,  as  occasion  demanded,  we  find 

different  tests  of  faith  adopted.     Some  of  these  were  designed 

to  try  the  faith  of  only  one  person,  while  others  were  designed 

50 


578  TRANSUBSTANTIATIONT. 

to  try  the  faith  of  a  whole  people.  In  the  twenty-second  chap- 
ter  of  Genesis,  we  have  the  simple  and  affecting  narrative  of  the 
severe  test  of  faith  to  which  God  subjected  His  servant  Abra- 
ham, when  He  commanded  him  to  sacrifice  his  own  son  Isaac—- 
the son  that  had  been  born  to  him  in  his  old  age,  by  a  miracle. 
And  we  are  informed  with  what  fidelity  the  old  patriarch  com- 
plied with  the  command  of  his  Master,  until  prevented  by  an 
angel  from  destroying  his  young  son,  while  in  the  very  act  of 
taking  his  knife  to  shed  his  blood.  Here  was  an  example  of 
pure  and  holy  faith,  worthy  of  all  imitation. 

In  the  sixteenth  chapter  of  Exodus,  we  are  informed  that 
the  Israelites  murmured  in  the  wilderness  of  Sin,  because  they 
had  no  bread,  and  that  God  sent  them  manna  to  prove  them. 

"  And  then  said  the  Lord  unto  Moses,  Behold,  I  will  rain 
bread  from  heaven  for  you ;  and  the  people  shall  go  out  and 
gather  a  certain  rate  every  day,  that  I  may  prove  them,  whether 
they  will  walk  in  my  law  or  no." 

These  are  only  two  out  of  the  many  instances  contained  in 
the  Old  Testament. 

In  the  New  Testament  we  find  many  instances  in  which  our 
Lord  tested  the  faith  of  His  disciples  while  He  was  with  them, 
among  which  it  will  only  be  necessary  to  mention  a  few.  In 
the  sixth  chapter  of  St.  John,  our  Lord  tried  Philip  by  asking 
him,  "  Whence  shall  we  buy  bread  that  these  may  eat  ?  "  A 
very  affecting  instance  is  given,  (Jo.  xi.,)  where  Christ  subjected 
the  faith  of  Martha  to  a  severe  test,  when  He  says  to  her :  "  He 
that  believeth  in  me,  though  he  were  dead,  yet  shall  he  live ; 
and  whosoever  liveth  and  believeth  in  me,  shall  never  die.  Be- 
lievest  thou  this  ?  "  But  perhaps  the  most  affecting  instance 
mentioned  in  any  of  the  four  Gospels,  is  the  case  of  the  woman 
of  Canaan,  found  in  the  fifteenth  chapter  of  Matthew.  "And 
behold,  a  woman  of  Canaan  came  out  of  the  same  coasts,  and 
cried  unto  him,  saying,  Have  mercy  on  me,  O  Lord,  thou  son 
of  David  ;  my  daughter  is  grievously  vexed  with  a  devil.  But 
he  answered  her  not  a  word.  And  his  disciples  came  and 
besought  him,  saying,  Send  her  away ;  for  she  crieth  after  us 
But  he  answered  and  said,  I  am  not  sent  but  unto  the  lost  sheep 
of  the  house  of  Israel.  Then  she  came  and  worshipped  him, 
saying,  Lord,  help  me.  But  he  answered  and  said,  It  is  not 


T  HANS  INSTANTIATION.  579 

meet  to  take  the  children's  bread  and  to  cast  it  to  dogs.  And 
she  said,  Truth,  Lord ;  yet  the  dogs  eat  of  the  crumbs  which 
fall  from  their  master's  table.  Then  Jesus  answered  and  said 
unto  her,  O  woman,  great  is  thy  faith ;  be  it  unto  thee  even  as 
thou  wilt."  What  a  beautiful  instance  of  pure  and  humble 
faith  !  I  can  scarcely  ever  read  this  simple  narrative  without 
the  tribute  of  a  tear,  and  a  hearty  wish  that  my  heart  had  as 
little  pride  in  it  as  the  heart  of  that  poor  woman. 

The  examples  we  find  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  show 
the  utility  of  tests  of  faith.  These  tests  all  passed  away  with 
the  Old  dispensation.  As  Christ  left  us  a  finished  and  universal 
system,  which  is  to  endure  unto  the  end  of  the  world,  and  ap- 
plicable to  all  nations,  in  all  subsequent  time,  it  would  seem  to 
have  been  reasonable  and  just,  in  itself,  that  He  should  establish 
a  permanent  test  of  faith,  as  enduring  and  uniform  as  faith  itself. 
And  if  any  test"  of  faith  was  to  remain,  what  could  be  more  con- 
clusive than  the  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence? 

That  Christianity  is  a  system  founded  upon  miracles,  must 
be  conceded.  He  who  believes  it  must  believe  in  wonderful 
displays  of  supernatural  power.  He  must  believe  all  the  mira- 
cles of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  and  must  do  so  without 
regard  to  the  occasion  or  the  nature  of  the  miracle  itself.  He 
must  believe  all,  from  the  crossing  of  the  Red  Sea  to  the  wid- 
ow's cruse  of  oil.  However  great  or  small  the  miracle,  he  must 
regard  it  as  equally  easy  with  God,  and  equally  worthy  of  His 
power.  And  this  belief  in  the  mind  of  the  Christian  must  be  a 
living  and  continuing  faith,  not  to  be  banished  by  the  "  God- 
less look  of  earth,"  or  the  sneer  of  the  proud  and  vain. 

Now,  it  must  be  manifest  that  it  requires  a  much  greater 
degree  of  humble  faith  to  believe  in  the  Real  Presence  of  Christ 
in  the  Eucharist,  than  in  a  mere  symbolical  presence.  And  this 
is  conclusively  shown  by  the  fact  that  most  of  those  who  believe 
in  the  metaphorical  sense,  rely  upon  the  testimony  of  their 
senses,  and  upon  their  abstract  ideas  of  possibility.  When  Dr. 
Tomlin,  Bishop  Porteus,  Dr.  Clark,  Mr.  Home,  Mr.  Hallam,  and 
others,  tell  me  that  they  believe  it  impossible  for  the  body  of 
Christ  to  be  present  in  the  Eucharist,  they  tell  me,  in  substance, 
that  if  they  were  satisfied  that  such  a  doctrine  was  revealed  in 
Scripture,  they  would  reject  the  entire  system  of  Christianity 


580  TRANS  CBSTANTIATIONT. 

itself;  for  it  is  clear,  that  a  man  cannot  believe  that  which  he 
considers  impossible. 

The  man  that  sincerely  believes  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Real 
Presence  has  no  seeds  of  infidelity  in  his  mind.  Such  a  man  re- 
lies with  implicit  and  unfaltering  faith  upon  the  Word  of  God, 
It  is  much  easier,  and  requires  a  much  less  degree  of  faith,  to 
believe  in  the  miracles  of  the  dim,  distant  past,  than  in  those 
that  are  alleged  to  occur  in  our  own  presence,  and  in  contradic- 
tion to  some  of  our  senses.  We  may  believe,  upon  the  Word 
of  God,  that  the  senses  of  Abraham  and  Lot,  and  others,  were 
deceived ;  but  when,  upon  the  same  Word  of  God,  we  are  re- 
quired to  believe  that  our  own  senses  are  deceived  in  part,  then 
comes  the  genuine  and  living  test  of  faith  in  the  Word  of  God, 
and  the  truth  of  the  whole  system. 

In  looking  over  the  chapters  of  the  New  Testament,  espe- 
cially the  Gospels,  one  cannot  but  be  forcibly  struck  with  the 
great  and  paramount  importance  of  faith.  Our  Saviour  never 
failed  to  reward  this  cardinal  virtue.  In  some  cases  He  went 
out  of  the  usual  course  of  His  ministry  to  reward  it,  as  in  the 
case  of  the  woman  of  Canaan.  He  never  failed  to  express  His 
warm  approbation  of  every  confiding  display  of  it.  We  find 
Him  often  reproving  His  disciples  for  their  want  of  faith.  And 
while  our  Lord  was  so  careful  to  inculcate  the  absolute  neces- 
sity of  this  first  fundamental  principle,  He  was  no  less  careful  to 
condemn  that  vice  in  the  human  heart  which  is  the  most  deter- 
mined enemy  of  faith.  And  if  there  be  one  human  passion 
against  which  Christ  and  His  apostles  warred  more  energeti- 
cally than  against  any  other,  it 

u  Is  pride,  the  never-failing  vice  of  fools," 

as  Pope  has  expressed  it.  And  the  Gospel  narrative  will  show 
how  often  this  evil  principle  was  the  mother  of  disobedience 
and  unbelief,  in  the  chosen  twelve,  even  after  they  had  heard 
the  divine  lessons  of  our  Lord,  and  witnessed  all  His  wonderful 
displays  of  power  for  more  than  three  years.  We  see  it  exhib- 
ited in  Peter,  when  he  refused  to  let  his  Master  wash  his  feet. 
Now  there  is  no  doctrine  that  so  forcibly  inculcates  simple  and 
unflinching  faith  as  the  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence ;  and 
there  is  no  doctrine  that  requires  a  greater  disregard  of  the 


TRANS  INSTANTIATION.  581 

natural  pride  of  the  human  mind.  And  this  is  shown  by  the 
proud  and  contemptuous  sneers  of  the  majority  of  the  writers 
whom  I  have  mentioned. 

It  was  evidently  the  intention  of  Christ  to  keep  the  faith 
pure  and  entire.  In  the  nature  of  the  system  it  could  not  ac- 
commodate its  truths  to  the  views  of  men.  It  was,  and  ever 
must  be,  one  and  inflexible.  While  our  Lord  and  His  apostles, 
as  to  the  mere  manner  of  inculcating  truth,  were  as  kind  and 
gentle  as  could  have  been  desired,  they  never  softened  the  doc- 
trines themselves,  for  the  purpose  of  gaining  converts.  And 
every  attempt  to  extend  the  principles  of  the  system,  either  by 
latitudinarian  construction,  or  by  any  other  means,  so  as  to 
bring  it  down  to  the  comprehension  of  natural  reason,  or  the 
loose  opinions  of  men,  is  only  so  much  injury  to  the  purity  of 
the  system  itself.  Like  the  idle  attempt  to  increase  the  value 
of  the  circulating  medium  by  debasing  the  coin,  every  attempt 
to  shape  this  unchangeable  system  to  suit  the  humors  and  ver- 
satilities of  men,  must  necessarily  render  the  system  less  lovely 
and  beautiful,  and,  therefore,  in  the  end,  less  attractive  to  the 
really  pious  and  virtuous.  In  this  way  the  progress  of  the  sys* 
tern  itself  would  be  retarded.  But  by  requiring  a  firm  and  im- 
plicit belief  in  continued  displays  of  Omnipotent  power,  and  this 
upon  the  once-delivered  and  unqualified  Word  of  God,  and  in 
opposition  to  some  of  our  own  senses,  our  Lord  has  given  us, 
not  only  one  of  the  most  practical  and  severe  tests  of  faith,  but 
has  given  us  a  golden  tie  that  binds  us  still  more  powerfully  to 
the  cause  of  virtue.  For  what  can  more  powerfully  impress  the 
human  soul  than  this  awfully  sublime  and  tender  faith  ?  What 
can  more  fully  display,  and  continue  to  display,  that  invincible 
love  wherewith  Christ  has  loved  us  ?  When  we  look  back  over 
His  mortal  career,  and  see  how  much  He  suffered,  how  many 
most  grievous  insults  He  endured,  and  then  reflect  that  all  this 
was  purely  voluntary,  we  cannot  think  that  this  great  display 
of  His  love,  is  unbecoming  His  unbounded  mercy  towards  those 
who  love  Him. 

The  legitimate  and  natural  effect  upon  the  mind  of  the  hum- 
ble and  sincere  believer  in  the  Catholic  view,  cannot  be  well 
described  in  words.  It  would  seem  manifest  that  such  a  belief 
must  fill  the  mind  and  soul  with  the  most  tender  and  fervent 


582  TRANSUBBTANTIATION. 

impulses  Well  might  the  Infidel  Voltaire  say,  "  Behold  the 
man,  who,  amidst  the  awful  ceremonies  of  the  mass,  receives 
the  holy  communion.  His  whole  soul  is  seized  and  strongly 
affected.  Hardly  does  he  breathe.  He  is  detached  from  every 
earthly  thing — he  is  united  to  his  God.  God  is  incorporated 
with  his  flesh  and  blood.  Who  will  dare — who  possibly  can, 
after  such  an  action,  be  guilty  of  any  future  relapses  into  sin  ? 
Is  it  possible  to  imagine  a  mystery  that  could  bind  men  more 
forcibly  to  virtue  ?  " 

The  following  extract  from  a  very  recent  work — u  Hilliard's 
Six  Months  in  Italy  " — describes  the  services  of  Christmas,  at 
St.  Peter's,  Rome :  "  High  Mass  was  said  by  the  Pope  in  per- 
son, and  the  responses  were  sung  by  the  choir.  He  performed 
the  service  with  an  air  and  manner  expressive  of  true  devotion, 
and  though  I  felt  that  there  was  a  chasm  between  me  and  the 
rite  which  I  witnessed,  I  followed  his  movements  in  the  spirit 
of  respect,  and  not  of  criticism.  But  one  impressive  and  over- 
powering moment  will  never  be  forgotten.  When  the  tinkling 
of  the  bell  announced  the  elevation  of  the  Host,  the  whole  of 
the  vast  assemblage  knelt  or  bowed  their  faces.  The  pavement 
was  suddenly  strewn  with  prostrate  forms.  A  silence  like  that 
of  death  fell  upon  the  church,  as  if  some  celestial  vision  had 
passed  before  the  living  eyes,  and  hushed  into  stillness  every 
pulse  of  human  feeling.  After  a  pause  of  a  few  seconds,  during 
which  every  man  could  have  heard  the  beating  of  his  own  heart, 
a  band  of  wind  instruments  near  the  entrance,  of  whose  pres- 
ence I  had  not  been  aware,  poured  forth  a  few  sweet  and  solemn 
strains,  which  floated  up  the  nave  and  overflowed  the  whole  in- 
terior. The  effect  of  this  invisible  music  was  beyond  any  thing 
I  have  ever  heard  or  expect  to  hear.  The  air  seemed  stirred 
with  the  trembling  of  angelic  wings,  or  as  if  the  gates  of  heaven 
had  been  opened,  and  a  '  wandering  breath '  from  the  songs  of 
seraphs  had  been  borne  to  the  earth.  How  fearfully  and  won- 
derfully are  we  made !  A  few  sounds,  which,  under  ordinary 
circumstances,  would  have  been  merely  a  passing  luxury  to  the 
ear,  heard  at  this  moment,  and  beneath  this  dome,  were  like  a 
purifying  wave,  which,  for  an  instant,  swept  over  the  soul,  bear- 
ing away  with  it  all  the  soil  and  stains  of  earth,  and  leaving  it 
pure  as  in  infancy.  There  was,  it  is  true,  a  refluent  tide ;  and 


TRANSl'BSTANTLVnON.  583 

the  world,  displaced  by  the  solemn  strain,  came  back  with  the 
echo ;  but  though  we  '  cannot  keep  the  heights  we  are  competent 
to  gain,'  we  are  the  better  for  the  too  brief  exaltation." 

The  eloquent  Protestant  has  beautifully  described  his  own 
feelings  ;  but  who  shall  adequately  describe  those  of  the  humble 
Catholic  ?  I  cannot.  Language  is  poor.  There  are  some  holy 
things  beyond  its  power. 

§  18.  Testimony  of  the  Fathers — Discipline  of  the  Secret. 

In  order  to  understand  the  meaning  of  the  Fathers,  and  to 
explain  certain  passages  of  their  writings,  it  is  necessary  to  un- 
derstand the  practice  of  the  early  suffering  Church,  in  reference 
to  the  mysteries.  For  several  centuries  it  was  the  general  prac- 
tice to  hide,  as  far  as  practicable,  the  leading  mysteries  of  the 
Christian  Religion  from  Pagans,  and  even  from  the  catechumens. 
A  knowledge  of  these  mysteries  was  generally  communicated  to 
the  baptized,  or  to  the  initiated,  as  they  were  called.  This 
practice  was  called  the  Discipline  of  the  Secret. 

St.  Clement,  of  Alexandria,  is  the  first  writer  who  mentions 
this  Discipline,  but  he  speaks  of  it  without  hesitation,  doubt,  or 
apology,  as  a  practice  in  the  Church,  and  grounds  it  upon  these 
words  of  Christ :  "  Cast  not  your  pearls  before  swine,"  <fcc. 

"  And  since  not  this  tradition  alone,"  says  he,  "  is  made 
manifest  to  him  who  has  felt  the  greatness  of  the  Word, 
the  wisdom  spoken  in  a  mystery,  which  the  Son  of  God  taught, 
is  to  be  concealed."  "  He  (Christ)  has  permitted  us  to  impart 
the  divine  mysteries,  and  that  holy  light,  to  those  who  are  able 
to  receive  them."  "  We  have  performed  our  task  in  such  a 
manner  as  to  render  the  discovery  of  the  holy  traditions  no  easy 
task  for  any  of  the  uninitiated."  (Stromata,  L.  i.,  n.  12,  p.  348. 
Strom.,  L.  i.,  n.  1,  p.  323.  Id.  L.  v.,  n.  12,  p.  886.) 

Tertullian,  speaking  of  heretics,  says  :  "  In  the  first  place  it 
is  doubtful  who  is  a  catechumen,  who  a  believer  :  they  have  all 
access  alike  ;  they  hear  alike  ;  they  pray  alike ;  even  if  heathens 
come  in  upon  them,  they  will  cast  that  which  is  holy  unto  dogs ; 
and  pearls,  false  though  they  be,  before  swine.'1 

Origen  says :  "  Celsus  frequently  calls  our  doctrine  hidden, 
though  the  gospel  of  the  Christians  is,  almost  throughout  the 
whole  world,  better  known  than  the  opinions  of  philosophers.  *  * 


584:  TRANS  UBSTANTIATIO.N. 

But  there  being,  besides  the  exoteric  doctrines,  some  things 
which  are  not  manifested  to  the  crowd,  is  not  peculiar  to  the 
doctrines  of  Christians  only,  but  was  also  amongst  the  philoso- 
phers, amongst  whom  some  discourses  were  exoteric,  and  some 
also  esoteric."  (T.  i.,  L.  1,  Con.  Cels.,  n.  7.) 

St.  Hypolitus:  "But  see  that  you  do  not  confide  these 
things  to  unbelieving  and  blasphemous  tongues,  for  the  danger 
is  not  slight,  but  intrust  them  to  faithful  men." 

"  And  we  are  also  ordered,"  says  St.  Cyprian,  "  to  keep  what 
is  holy  within  our  own  knowledge,  and  not  expose  it  to  be 
trodden  on  by  swine  and  dogs."  (Lebn.  ad  Demetr.  423.) 

"These  mysteries,"  says  Archelaus,  "the  Church  now 
unfolds  to  those  who  are  passed  from  the  class  of  catechumens ; 
to  the  Gentiles  it  is  not  the  custom  to  manifest  them."  (Disp. 
cum  Manete.) 

Lactantius  says :  "  Beyond  the  mere  words,  he  cannot  please 
those  who  are  ignorant  of  the  sacrament,  inasmuch  as  the 
things  that  he  has  written  are  mystical,  and  purposely  designed 
to  be  understood  by  the  faithful  only."  This  is  said  in  reference 
to  St.  Cyprian's  writings.  (Divin.  Justit.,  1.  v.,  c.  i.) 

One  of  the  chapters  of  Eusebius  is  headed  thus  :  "  That  it 
beseems  not  to  make  known  to  all,  the  more  venerable  doctrines 
of  truth."  (Prap.  Evarig.,  1.  xii.,  c.  7.) 

And  St.  Athanasius  says:  "As  to  the  mystic  cup,  what  was, 
or  when  was  it  broken  by  Macarius?  *  *  *  Nor  are  they  (the 
Arians)  ashamed  to  display  publickly  the  mysteries  before  the 
catechumens ;  and  what  is  worse  still,  before  the  heathens."  *  * 
"  For  the  mysteries  ought  not  to  be  publickly  exhibited  to  the 
uninitiated,  lest  the  Gentiles,  who  understand  them  not,  scoff; 
and  the  catechumens,  becoming  curious,  be  scandalized."  (Apol. 
Cant.  Arian.,  n.  xi.,  t.  i.,  p.  105.) 

I  might  add  the  testimony  of  St.  Gregory  of  Myssa,  St. 
Basil,  St.  Philastrius,  St.  Epiphanius,  St.  Ambrose,  St.  J.  Chry- 
sostom,  and  many  others ;  but  it  is  unnecessary,  as  the  fact  13 
not  disputed. 

It  has  sometimes  been  denied  that  the  Eucharist  was  had 
among  the  mysteries.  But  the  extracts  from  St.  Athanasius 
and  Lactantius  are  clear  that  it  was.  So  the  testimony  of  St. 
Gregory  of  Myssa  is  full  to  that  point.  If  a  mystery,  it  came 


TKANSUBSTANTIATION.  58& 

under  the  general  discipline  which  included  all  mysteries.  And 
St.  Ambrose  says :  "  The  time  admonishes  us  to  treat  of  the 
mysteries,  and  to  proclaim  the  meaning  of  the  sacraments." 
And  St.  Augustine  says :  "  If  we  say  to  a  catechumen,  4  Dost 
thou  believe  in  Christ  ?  '  he  will  answer,  '  I  do  believe,'  and 
sign  himself:  he  already  carries  on  his  forehead  the  cross  of 
Christ,  and  is  not  ashamed  of  the  cross  of  his  Lord.  So  he  has 
believed  in  his  name.  Let  us  ask  him :  '  Durst  thou  eat  the 
flesh  of  the  Son  of  man,  and  drink  the  blood  of  the  Son  of 
man  ? '  he  knows  not  what  to  say,  because  Jesus  has  not  trusted 
himself  to  him."  (T.  iii.  Trac.  xi.  in  Joan.  Ev.,  n.  3.)  And  St. 
Paladius  says  :  "  And  the  evil  stopped  not  here,  but  the  Soldiers, 
of  whom  some,  as  we  have  learned,  were  even  uninitiated, — en- 
tering into  where  the  holy  things  were  deposited,  saw  every 
thing  that  was  within,  and  the  most  holy  blood  of  Christ,  so 
great  was  the  tumult,  was  spilt  upon  their  dress."  (De  Yita.  S. 
J.  Chrys.  Dia.,  c.  2.) 

St.  Cyril,  of  Alexandria,  says  :  "  When  he  (the  catechumen) 
has  joined  his  praise  to  that  of  the  perfect  (initiated),  he  with- 
draws from  the  more  secret  mysteries,  and  is  excluded  from 
Christ's  sacrifice."  (T.  L,  lib.  xii.,  De  Ador.  in  Sp.  et  Vir.,  p. 
445.) 

Theodoret  also  places  the  Eucharist  among  the  mysteries. 
And  Tertullian,  in  his  Apology,  says  :  "  It  is  the  common  law 
of  all  mysteries  to  keep  them  secret." 

If,  then,  we  wish  to  correctly  understand  what  were  the  sen- 
timents of  the  early  Church,  we  must  look  mainly  to  those  in- 
structions given  to  the  initiated,  and  not  so  much  to  those  in- 
tended for  the  multitude  without,  in  which  the  language  used 
is  often  obscure,  in  pursuance  of  the  Secret  Discipline. 

§  19.  Testimony  of  St.  Ignatius. 

The  first  Father  who  speaks  of  this  doctrine,  is  Ignatius, 
Bishop  of  the  great  Eastern  city  of  Antioch  for  forty  years,  and 
a  holy  martyr  under  the  Emperor  Trajan.  This  holy  and  dis- 
tinguished person  was  the  disciple  and  friend  of  the  apostles ; 
particularly  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  John.  In  A.  D.  106,  in  his  old 
age,  and  about  six  years  after  the  death  of  St.  John,  the  perse- 
cuting Romar  Emperor  came  to  Antioch,  and  had  the  holy 
51 


586  TRANSUBSTANTIAT10N. 

man  brought  before  him.  Ignatius  "  confessed  and  denied  not," 
and  the  Emperor  "  commanded  that  he  be  carried  by  soldiers  in 
chains  unto  the  great  city  of  Rome,  there  to  be  devoured  by 
wild  beasts  for  the  public  gratification."  "  When  the  holy  mar- 
tyr," says  the  account  of  his  martyrdom,  "  heard  this  announce- 
ment, he  cried  out  with  joy  :  *  I  thank  Thee,  O  my  Master,  for 
that  thou  hast  permitted  me  to  show  forth  in  the  penalty 
I  am  to  suffer,  the  perfect  love  I  have  toward  Thee ;  and  hast 
associated  me  with  thine  Apostle  Paul  in  these  iron  bands." 
"  From  Syria,"  he  says  hi  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  "  unto 
Rome  I  carry  forward  my  sufferings,  by  land  and  sea,  night  and 
day ;  enchained  of  ten  leopards,  which  are  the  soldiers  ranked 
around  me  ;  who  by  kindness  are  made  harsher." 

On  his  journey  to  Rome,  he  visited  the  Holy  Poly  carp, 
Bishop  of  Smyrna,  the  "  Angel "  of  Smyrna  mentioned  in  Rev. 
ii.  8—11.  During  his  journey  he  wrote  several  Epistles  to  dif- 
ferent churches,  and  one  to  Polycarp.  While  at  Smyrna  he 
wrote  several  of  them,  especially  that  to  the  Romans  ;  and  after 
leaving  them  at  Troas,  he  wrote  his  Epistles  to  Polycarp,  and 
the  Church  at  Smyrna.  His  Epistles  are  seven  in  number,  and 
were  separately  addressed  to  the  Ephesians,  the  Magnesians, 
the  Trallians,  the  Church  at  Smyrna,  the  Romans,  the  Phila- 
delphians,  and  Polycarp, 

In  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  he  besought  his  brethren  not 
to  interfere  for  his  safety,  in  terms  the  most  simple,  touching, 
and  beautiful.  "  You  can  give  me  no  better  gift,"  says  he, 
"  than  my  immolation  to  God,  while  yet  the  altar  is  ready." — "  I 
long  for  the  wild  beasts  that  are  prepared  for  me." — "  Fire  and 
the  cross,  the  assaults  of  beasts,  the  rending  of  my  bones,  the 
laceration  of  my  limbs,  the  crushing  of  my  whole  frame,  dire 
tortures  of  Satan,  let  them  come  upon  me,  so  that  I  but  go  to 
Christ." — "  Have  pity  on  me,  my  brethren." — "  Suffer  me  to 
imitate  the  sufferings  of  my  God." — "  If,  when  I  come  among 
you,  I  claim  of  you  to  interfere  for  my  preservation,  yet  listen 
not  to  me.  Keep  faith  rather  with  the  terms  in  which  I  now 
write  to  you.  I  live,  but  while  I  am  writing  to  you,  I  long  to 
die.  My  affections  are  crucified." — "  This  is  no  time  for  holding 
peace  ;  when  Christianity  is  hated  of  the  world,  it  calls  for  high 
exertions." — "  I  have  written  to  you  in  few  words.  Place  con 


TRANS  INSTANTIATION.  587 

fidence  in  me.  Surely  Jesus  Christ  shall  make  this  manifest  to 
you,  that  I  have  spoken  truly." — "  Remember  in  your  prayers 
the  Church  that  is  in  Syria,  which  hath  God  for  its  shepherd 
instead  of  me.  Its  only  Bishop  now  will  be  Jesus  Christ,  and 
your  love.  I  feel  unworthy  to  bear  the  name  of  my  flock.  I 
am  the  last  among  them." 

Before  he  arrived  at  Rome,  and  after  landing  at  a  place 
called  Portius,  a  short  distance  from  the  city,  "  he  was  met  by 
certain  brethren,  whose  minds  were  in  a  mingled  state  of  fear 
and  joy."  "To  some  of  them  he  expressed  a  wish  that  they 
should  hold  back  from  interference ;  as  in  the  ardor  of  their 
feelings,  they  declared  their  intention  of  inducing  the  populace 
to  ask  that  this  good  man  might  not  be  killed.  Knowing  this, 
he  implored  all,  after  saluting  them,  to  show  him  a  true  love  ; 
expressing  himself  more  largely  on  the  point  than  in  his  Epistle ; 
and  entreating  them  not  to  injure  the  prospects  of  one  who  was 
hastening  to  his  Lord.  And  so,  with  all  the  brethren  on  their 
bended  knees,  he  besought  the  Son  of  God  for  the  churches, 
that  he  would  remove  from  them  this  persecution,  and  confirm 
the  brotherhood  in  all  mutual  love."  "  He  was  thrown  to  the 
wild  beasts  close  to  the  temple."  "  We  personally  witnessed 
every  thing,"  say  the  writers  of  this  account,  "  and  passed  the 
following  night  within  doors,  in  tears ;  and  often  knelt  we  down, 
and  addressed  to  the  Lord  a  prayer,  that  He  would  strengthen 
that  reliance  in  Him,  which  the  event  of  the  day  had  tended  to 
disturb." 

We  owe  it  to  Polycarp  that  these  important  Epistles  were 
preserved  to  after  ages.  In  his  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  he 
says :  "  Obeying  the  bishop  and  the  presbytery  with  an  entire 
mind  ;  breaking  one  bread,  which  is  the  medicine  of  immortal- 
ity ;  an  antidote  that  we  should  not  die,  but  live  forever  in  Jesus 
Christ."  In  his  Epistle  to  the  church  at  Smyrna,  he  speaks  of 
the  Doceta,  who  denied  that  Christ  had  a  real  body,  and  says : 
"  He  (Christ)  suffered  all  these  things  for  us,  and  for  our  salva- 
tion ;  and  he  verily  su-ffered,  as  He  in  verity  also  raised  himself 
again  ;  and  not,  as  some  unbelievers  say,  that  He  suffered  in  ap- 
pearance only,  being  themselves  only  an  appearance ;  and  ac- 
cording to  their  belief,  so  shall  it  be  unto  them,  seeing  that  they 
are  Phantastics  and  Demoniacs."  He  further  speaks  of  these 


588  TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 

heretics,  and  says  :  "  But  I  forewarn  you  against  beasts  in  ha- 
man  shape ;  these  you  must  not  only  not  admit  to  your  society, 
but,  if  possible,  not  even  come  in  their  way.  Only  pray  for 
them,  that  if  by  any  means  they  may  repent."  *  *  *  "  They  (the 
heretics)  abstain  from  the  Eucharist  and  prayer,  because  they 
confess  not  that  the  Eucharist  is  the  flesh  of  our  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ,  the  flesh  which  suffered  for  our  sins,  which  the  Father 
in  his  mercy  raised  again.  They,  therefore,  who  deny  the  gift 
of  God,  perish  in  their  disputing.  Well  had  it  been  for  them 
to  make  much  of  it,  that  they  also  might  rise  again."  The  same 
sentiments  are  expressed  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  and  in 
that  to  the  Philadelphians. 

This  language  of  Ignatius  is  so  plain,  and  the  intention  so 
manifest,  that  I  am  not  aware  of  any  attempt  to  explain  them 
away  by  any  Protestant  writer.  For  he  does  state  most  expli- 
citly, that  the  "  Eucharist  is  the  flesh  of  our  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ /  "  and  then  to  make  it  still  more  clear  and  certain  as  to 
what  flesh  he  did  mean,  he  says  :  "  the  flesh  which  suffered  for 
our  sins,  which  the  Father,  in  his  mercy,  raised  again."  And 
he  calls  those  heretics  who  denied  this  doctrine ;  and  ascribes 
an  efficacy  to  the  Eucharist,  which  could  only  belong  to  it  in 
the  view  of  one  who  held  the  Real  Presence  of  Christ  in  this 
Sacrament.  He  says :  "  Well  had  it  been  for  them  to  make 
much  of  it,  that  they  also  might  rise  again ; "  clearly  alluding 
to  the  words  of  our  Lord  :  "  Whoso  eateth  my  flesh,  and  drink- 
eth  my  blood,  hath  eternal  life ;  and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the 
last  day."  (John  vi.  54.) 

But,  Old  Martyr,  what  right  had  you  to  say  so  ?  What 
right  had  you  to  put  forth  that  as  a  doctrine  of  the  Church  ? 
You  speak  of  it,  in  your  Epistle  to  the  church  at  Smyrna,  over 
which  the  sainted  Poly  carp  then,  and  for  many  years  afterwards, 
presided  as  bishop,  as  a  doctrine  of  the  Church ;  for  you  intro- 
duce it  <*  without  hesitation,  doubt,  or  apology,"  as  our  Dr. 
Paley  has  it.  And  where  did  you  find  this  wonderful  and  vis- 
ionary doctrine  ?  Were  you  the  inventor  ?  Did  your  acute 
and  metaphysical  mind  originate  it  ?  You  were  the  disciple  of 
the  apostles — were  instructed  and  appointed  by  them— ^-and 
claimed  to  have  learned  all  you  knew  of  Christianity  from  them. 
Did  you  learn  this  doctrine  from  the  author  of  St.  John's  Gos- 


TRANSUBSTANTIATTON.  589 

pel  ?  If  not,  you  were  in  great  haste  to  introduce  heresy.  This 
was  certainly  very  inconsistent  in  you.  Did  you  not  warn  your 
Magnesian  brethren  not  to  "  be  led  astray  by  strange  doctrine, 
nor  by  old  fables,  which  are  unprofitable  "  ?  Did  you  not  urge 
the  Trallians  "  to  use  only  the  Christian  nourishment,  and  to 
abstain  from,  that  strange  herb,  which  is  heresy"?  And  did 
you  not  urge  upon  all  the  necessity  of  unity,  and  to  "  concur  in 
professing  the  name  of  one  faith,  and  one  Jesus  Christ "  ?  And 
did  you  not  urge  holy  Polycarp  to  "  be  in  all  things  '  wise  as 
the  serpent  and  harmless  as  the  dove '  "  ?  Did  you  not  warn 
him  to  "  stand  firm  as  the  anvil  under  the  stroke  "  ?  How  then, 
in  the  face  of  all  these  expressions,  could  you  introduce  this 
strange  doctrine  ?  And  how  could  you,  on  your  very  way  to 
martyrdom,  after  using  the  glowing,  yet  simple  language,  so 
befitting  the  valiant  martyr  for  the  cause  of  Christ,  put  forth 
such  a  doctrine  ?  Was  all  your  firmness,  all  your  devotion,  all 
your  tenderness,  but  assumed,  only  to  give  force  to  your  state- 
ment of  this  alleged  false  and  absurd  doctrine?  Did  you  die 
with  a  falsehood  in  your  mouth  ?  It  would  seem  impossible, 
old  Christian  hero,  that  you  did. 

But  were  you  not  deceived  yourself?  And  how  could  this 
be  ?  You  were  a  leading  man,  eminent  for  talents,  zeal,  and 
fidelity,  and  for  many  years  bishop  of  the  great  city  of  Antioch  ; 
and  your  memory  has  ever  been  sweet  to  your  brethren.  Your 
reputation  for  all  the  qualities  that  meet  and  mingle  in  the  char- 
acter of  the  eminent  saint,  was  widely  diffused.  Your  praise 
was  in  all  the  churches.  Your  Epistles  have  been  transmitted 
to  us  of  this  distant  day,  and  will  doubtless  go  down  to  later 
generations.  They  are  full  of  words  of  sweet  humility  and  holy 
confidence,  of  resignation  and  hope.  Who  can  read  them  with 
a  tearless  eye  ?  Who  can  believe  that  you  were  either  an  im- 
postor or  a  dupe  ?  And  if  you  were  a  dupe,  who  made  you  so  ? 
How  did  you  so  soon  forget  the  instructions  of  the  apostles,  who 
converted  and  appointed  you  ?  Was  not  this  doctrine  of  such 
an  extraordinary  character,  as  to  arrest,  at  once,  your  attention, 
and  arouse  your  determined  opposition,  if  untrue  f  Your  "  in- 
tegrity was  insured  by  the  insults  you  suffered ; "  and  your 
ability  by  the  opportunities  you  enjoyed.  How  then  could  you 
deceive,  or  be  deceived  ? 


590  TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 

But  if  this  doctrine  be  untrue,  how  did  you  succeed  in  de- 
ceiving the  Ephesians,  the  Romans,  the  Philadelphians,  and  the 
church  at  Smyrna,  and  its  holy  bishop  and  martyr,  Polycarp  ? 
This  holy  man  knew  what  was  in  your  Epistles,  for  he  preserved 
them  all.  Why  should  he  transmit  to  posterity,  uncontradicted, 
Epistles  containing  so  gross  an  alleged  error  ?  Was  he  a  faith- 
ful servant  of  his  Master  to  do  this  ?  Was  he  wise  as  the  ser- 
pent and  harmless  as  the  dove,  and  as  firm  as  the  anvil  under 
the  stroke  ?  And  is  it  not  clear  that  he,  and  the  churches  to 
which  your  Epistles  were  addressed,  agreed  with  you  in  senti- 
ment ?  If  any,  or  all  of  them,  disagreed  with  you,  why  did  they 
not  dissent  ?  And  if  they  did  dissent,  why  did  they  not  pre- 
serve and  transmit  that  dissent  with  your  erroneous  Epistles  to 
after  times  ?  Why  send  down  the  poison  without  the  antidote  ? 

But,  valiant  and  intrepid  Old  Martyr !  had  you  anticipated 
what  wise  men  would  say  of  your  doctrine  in  modern  times, 
would  you  have  made  the  statement  you  did  ?  They  speak  of 
it  in  very  harsh,  indignant,  and  contemptuous  terms.  Keen  is 
their  ridicule,  bitter  their  sarcasm,  and  stern  their  denunciation. 
Could  you  have  withstood  all  that  ? 

You  did  not  live  in  an  age  of  printing,  steamboats,  railroads, 
and  telegraphs.  The  world  is  now  endowed  with  a  sensibility 
it  never  felt  before.  Had  you  lived  in  these  bright  days,  you 
could  have  been  able  to  decide  upon  the  truth  or  falsity  of  an 
alleged  Christian  mystery,  simply  from  its  supposed  absurdity ; 
or  scientific  reasonableness,  as  apparent  to  improved  human  in- 
telligence. But  you  seem  to  have  acted  upon  a  different  prin- 
ciple. You  trusted  to  the  positive  instructions  of  the  apostles, 
for  your  faith  in  this  great  mystery.  What  they  taught,  you 
were  content  to  believe.  You  did  not  dispute  upon  abstract 
grounds,  as  to  such  a  mystery,  but  condemned  those  who  did. 
And  after  all  our  progress  in  the  arts  and  sciences,  it  is  still 
somewhat  doubtful  whether  our  reasoning  powers  are  much  im- 
proved, and  very  doubtful  whether  our  memories,  or  our  Chris 
tian  knowledge,  have  improved  at  all.  And  I  must  still  think, 
that  had  you  foreseen  all  the  hard  things  substantially  said 
against  you  by  the  wise  and  learned  men  of  modern  times, 
that  you  would,  nevertheless,  have  written  what  you  did.  You 
evidently  acted  upon  the  example  of  the  apostles,  to  tell  the 


TRANSUBSTAN'J  IATION.  591 

truth  and  take  the  consequences.  For  I  am  told,  in  the  history 
of  your  martyrdom,  that  you  withstood  the  mighty  Roman  Em- 
peror to  the  face,  and  remained  firm  under  all  his  frowns  and 
ridicule.  You  neither  feared  his  power  nor  heeded  his  sarcasm, 
when  he  pronounced  against  you  this  sentence  :  "  We  command 
that  Ignatius,  who  says  that  he  carries  about  within  him  one 
who  has  been  crucified,  be  carried  by  soldiers  in  chains  to  the 
great  city  of  Rome,  there  to  be  devoured  by  wild  beasts,  for 
the  public  gratification." 

What,  then,  shall  we  think  of  you  and  of  your  testimony  ? 
You  said  to  your  Roman  brethren,  "  Place  confidence  in  me." 
Old  Soldier  of  the  Cross,  for  one,  I  do.  I  respond  to  that  re- 
quest. I  love  your  memory.  I  covet  your  company.  I  ask 
your  prayers.  I  can  see  nothing  to  prove  you  either  a  knave 
or  a  fool — either  an  impostor  or  victim.  I  have  read  your 
Epistles.  They  are  beautiful.  They  are  full  of  ardent  piety. 
They  speak  in  the  strain  of  candor  and  humility.  I  can  see  no 
vein  of  vice  or  deception  peeping  out  at  any  point.  If  you  in- 
tended to  conceal  any  cheat  or  imposition,  most  successfully 
have  you  done  it.  I  confess  myself  too  weak  to  detect  it.  And 
I  iind  nothing  in  your  history  to  enable  me  to  come  to  any 
other  conclusion  than  that  you  were  both  honest  and  intelligent. 
As  such  I  trust  you,  whatever  wise  wits  may  say,  either  of  you 
or  of  the  doctrine  you  held.  They  may  call  you  a  "  mystic," 
a  "  visionary,"  and  say  you  were  fond  of  old  wives'  fables,  (the 
very  thing  you  wrote  against,)  but  it  was  by  such  mystics  and 
visionaries  as  you  that  Christ's  Kingdom  was  built  up ;  and  all 
these  arbitrary  and  unsupported  assertions  are  more  than  over- 
come by  your  exemplary  life,  your  noble  Epistles,  and  your 
glorious  martyrdom. 

§  20.   Testimony  of  St.  Justin  and  of  St.  Trenceus. 

The  next  Father  who  speaks  upon  this  subject  is  the  holy 
Justin,  the -philosopher  and  martyr,  and  usually  called  Justin 
Martyr.  He  was  born  in  Samaria,  of  heathen  parents,  and  grew 
up  ignorant  of  Christianity.  He  was  vigilant  in  the  pursuit  of 
knowledge,  and  joined  different  sects  of  philosophers,  and  was 
yet  dissatisfied.  One  day  he  was  wandering  by  the  sea  side,  when 
he  met  an  oL'  iran,  who  preached  unto  him  Jesus,  which  led  to 


592  TEANSUBSTANTIATION. 

his  conversion  in  A.  D.  132,  about  thirty  years  after  the  death  of 
St.  John.  About  eighteen  years  after  this  he  fixed  his  residence 
at  Rome,  where  he  composed  several  writings  in  defence  of  the 
Gospel.  He  was  also  a  distinguished  preacher.  Among  the 
works  he  composed  was  his  Apology  for  the  Christian  Religion, 
presented  to  the  Roman  Emperor,  Antoninus  Pius.  In  A.  D, 
167  he  suffered  martyrdom  at  Rome.  He  and  his  companions 
were  arrested,  and  brought  before  the  Roman  Prefect,  Rusticu^ 
who  asked,  "  Art  thou  not,  in  short,  a  Christian  ?  "  And  Justin 
answered,  "  Yea,  I  am  a  Christian."  The  other  glorious  mar- 
tyrs also  answered,  each  for  himself,  UI,  too,  am  a  Christian." 
After  in  vain  attempting,  by  threats  and  arguments,  to  induce 
them  to  sacrifice  to  the  heathen  gods,  and  after  they  had  told 
the  Prefect,  "  Do  what  thou  wilt,  for  we  are  Christians,  and  do 
no  sacrifice  to  idols,"  he  pronounced  this  sentence :  "  Let  such 
as  refuse  to  do  sacrifice  to  the  gods,  and  to  obey  the  decree  of 
the  Emperor,  be  scourged,  and  then  led  away  to  capital  punish- 
ment, in  pursuance  of  the  laws."  In  accordance  with  this  de- 
cree, they  suffered. 

Justin  says :  "  And  this  food  is  called  amongst  us  eucharist : 
of  which  no  one  is  allowed  to  partake  but  he  who  believes  what 
we  teach  is  true,  and  has  been  washed  in  the  laver  (of  baptism) 
which  is  for  remission  of  sins,  and  unto  regeneration,  and  who 
so  lives  as  Christ  has  delivered.  For  we  do  not  receive  these 
things  as  common  bread  and  common  drink ;  but  in  the  (same) 
manner  as  Jesus  Christ,  our  Saviour,  being  made  flesh  by  the 
word  of  God,  had  both  flesh  and  blood  for  our  salvation ;  even 
so  we  have  been  taught,  that  the  food  over  which  thanksgiving 
has  been  made,  (eucharistized,)  by  the  prayer  of  the  word  which 
came  from  him, — by  which  (food)  our  blood  and  flesh  are  nour- 
ished by  transmutation, — is  both  flesh  and  blood  of  that  same 
incarnate  Jesus.  For  the  apostles,  in  the  memoirs  composed  by 
them,  which  are  called  Gospels,  have  delivered,  that  Jesus  gave 
them  this  injunction  :  that,  having  taken  bread,  and  given  thanks, 
he  said,  Do  this  in  remembrance  of  me  ;  this  is  my  body  /  and 
that,  in  like  manner,  having  taken  the  cup  and  given  thanks,  he 
said,  This  is  my  blood ;  and  that  he  distributed  (them)  to  these 
alone."  (Apol.  i.,  n.  65,  66,  p.  82,  83.) 

The  language  of  this  extract  is  also  so  plain,  and  the  mean- 


TRANS  UB8TANTIATION.  593 

ing  so  clear,  that  I  am  not  aware  that  there  has  ever  been  a  se- 
rious doubt  entertained  of  the  true  intention  of  the  writer.  He 
states  explicitly  that  they  did  not  receive  these  things  as  com- 
mon bread  and  common  drink — that  Christ  was  made  flesh  by 
the  icord  of  God,  and  even  so  the  food  by  the  prayer  of  the 
word  which  came  from  Christ,  is  both  flesh  and  blood  of  that 
same  Jesus  incarnate ;  and  then  to  confirm  this  sense  he  quotes 
the  words,  Do  this  in  remembrance  of  me:  This  is  my  body  ; 
2Viis  is  my  blood. 

It  will  be  seen  that  Justin  departed  from  the  usual  practice, 
under  the  Discipline  of  the  Secret,  in  revealing  this  mystery  to 
one  outside  the  church.  The  reason  why  he  did  so  would  seem 
to  be  this :  In  his  Apology  he  assumed  to  set  out  the  leading 
tenets  of  his  religion ;  and  as  it  was  a  professed  statement  of 
those  tenets,  intended  for  the  Emperor,  the  head  and  represent- 
ative of  the  whole  Empire,  it  was  proper  he  should  state  the 
facts  plainly.  There  was  a  respect  due  to  the  head  of  the  na- 
tion, and  to  officers,  not  due  to  individuals,  as  such.  In  the 
letter  from  the  Church  at  Smyrna  to  the  Church  at  Philome- 
linm,  giving  an  account  of  the  martyrdom  of  the  holy  Polycarp, 
which  took  place  under  the  Roman  Emperors,  Marcus  Aurelius 
and  Lucius  Verrus,  it  is  stated,  that  when  the  Proconsul  had 
urged  the  holy  man  to  "  swear  by  the  fortune  of  Caesar,"  he  re- 
plied, "  I  am  a  Christian ;  and  if  you  wish  to  hear  the  Christian 
doctrine,  appoint  me  a  time,  and  hear  me."  The  Proconsul  an- 
swered, "  Persuade  the  people."  Polycarp  replied,  "  To  you  I 
thought  it  right  to  give  account,  for  we  have  been  taught  to 
give  to  rulers  and  the  powers  ordained  of  God,  such  fitting 
honor  as  hurteth  not  our  souls ;  but  them  I  deem  not  worthy, 
that  I  should  defend  myself  before  them." 

The  third  Father  who  mentions  this  subject  is  Irenaeus, 
Bishop  of  Lyons  in  France,  who  was  born  about  forty  years 
after  the  death  of  St.  John,  and  who  was  the  disciple  of  Polycarp. 
He,  and  nineteen  thousand  of  his  flock,  were  martyred  at  Lyons, 
by  a  mob,  A.  D.  202.  Irenaeus  says  : 

"  But  how  shall  they  feel  assured  that  that  bread,  over  which 
thanksgiving  has  been  made,  is  the  body  of  their  Lord,  and  the 
chalice  of  his  blood,  if  they  do  not  declare  him  the  Son  of  th« 
World's  Creator  ?  "— "  But  how  again  do  they  say,  that  that 


f>!M  TBANSUBSTANTIATION. 

flesh  which  is  nourished  by  the  body  of  the  Lord,  and  by  Ma 
blood,  passes  into  corruption,  and  partakes  not  of  the  life  ?  " 
(Adv.  Haeres.,  1.  iv.,  c.  18,  n.  4,  5,  p.  251.) 

"But  if  it  (the  flesh)  is  not  saved,  then  neither  did  the  Lord 
redeem  us  by  his  blood ;  nor  is  the  chalice  of  the  Eucharist  the 
communication  of  his  blood ;  nor  is  the  bread  which  we  break 
the  communication  of  his  body."  *  *  *  "Since,  therefore,  both 
the  mingled  cup  and  the  created  bread  receive  the  Word  of 
God,  and  the  Eucharist  becomes  Christ's  body  and  blood,  and 
out  of  these  the  substance  of  our  flesh  increases  and  subsists, 
how  can  they  say  that  the  flesh  is  not  susceptible  of  the  gift  of 
God, — which  (gift)  is  life  eternal, — that  flesh  which  is  nourished 
by  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord,  and  is  his  member?" 
(Ibid.,  1.  v.,  c.  2,  n.  2,  3,  p.  293,  294.) 

This  language  seems  too  plain  to  be  misunderstood. 

Between  Irenseus  and  St.  John,  the  apostle,  there  was  only 
one  link,  the  martyr  Polycarp.  As  we  have  seen,  Polycarp 
was  the  intfmate  friend  of  Ignatius,  and  alike  distinguished  in 
the  church.  He  was  then,  doubtless,  well  acquainted  with  the 
faith  of  Ignatius.  The  historical  facts  and  circumstances  relat- 
ing to  these  persons  all  show  that  Ignatius  and  Polycarp  held 
the  same  faith.  The  fact  that  Irenaeus  held  this  doctrine,  and 
he  being  the  disciple  of  Polycarp,  of  whom  and  of  whose  faith 
he  speaks  so  plainly  and  confidently,  is  very  conclusive  proof 
that  Polycarp  and  the  Church  at  Smyrna  held  this  same  faith. 
Irenaeus  also  expressly  declares,  as  we  have  seen,  that  the  church 
throughout  the  world  held  the  same  faith^  and  was  united  in 
the  same  government.  The  only  exception  was  the  heretics  of 
those  days,  who  did  hold  doctrines  that  no  one  now  can  en- 
dorse. Their  heresy  consisted  in  opinions  that  Protestants  will 
not  maintain.  Those  heretics  who  denied  that  Christ  had  a 
real  body,  of  course  were  compelled  to  deny  his  Real  Presence 
in  the  Eucharist. 

Ignatius  was  from  Antioch,  and  wrote  on  his  way  to  Rome. 
Justin  resided  and  wrote  at  Rome.  Irenaeus  was  Bishop  of 
Lyons  in  France,  and  wrote  there.  These  writers,  and  the 
churches  to  whom  they  wrote,  and  in  which  they  lived,  were 
widely  separated,  and  yet  they  all  agreed  in  this  doctrine.  If, 
then,  the  fact  be  certain  and  sure,  that  the  Catholic  Church,  in 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION.  595 

the  days  of  Irenaeus,  was  united  while  still  spread  over  the  whole 
world,  the  church  must  have  then  held  this  doctrine.  For  it 
would  seem  impossible  to  reconcile  any  other  state  of  case  with 
the  ciearly  proved  facts  of  history.  First  we  have  the  explicit 
testimony  of  Ignatius.  We  then  have  the  testimony  of  Poly- 
carp,  and  of  the  Churches  to  which  Ignatius  addressed  his  Epis- 
tles ;  for  while  they  have  not,  in  so  many  words,  expressly  en- 
dorsed the  sentiments  expressed  by  Ignatius,  they  did  so  by 
their  explicit  acts.  Then  we  have  the  testimony  of  Justin,  who 
assumes  to  state,  for  the  Roman  Emperor,  the  faith  of  the  Chris- 
tian world.  He  must  be  presumed  to  have  done  what  he  ex- 
pressly undertook  to  do ;  for  he  gave  the  most  conclusive  proofs 
that  he  was  both  competent  and  honest.  Then  comes  Irenaeus, 
who  also  states  the  faith  of  the  Catholic  Church,  which  he  af- 
firms was  then  spread  in  unity  throughout  the  whole  world. 
And  against  the  array  of  testimony  as  to  the  historical  fact,  that 
the  church,  from  the  days  of  Ignatius  in  A.  D.  106,  down  to  the 
time  of  Irenaeus  in  A.  D.  178,  did  hold  this  doctrine,  what  is 
there  to  oppose  ?  Who  disputed  it  ?  What  divisions  and  con- 
troversies did  aiise  ?  Who  denounced  it,  except  those  heretics 
that  all  condemn  ?  Where  were  those  who  held  the  true  faith, 
if  this  was  not?  How,  then,  did  this  doctrine  get  into  the 
church,  if  not  originally  in  it  ?  Why  were  other  heresies  de- 
nounced, and  this  not  noticed,  if  it  was  a  heresy  ?  Who  can 
account  for  such  a  remarkable  phenomenon  under  such  a  state 
of  circumstances  ?  What  rational  hypothesis  can  be  assumed 
for  such  a  supposed  case  ? 

§  21.  Testimony  of  the  Fathers  subsequent  io  the  days  of 
Irenceus. 

In  reference  to  the  faith  of  the  church  after  the  days  of 
Irenaeus  and  down  to  the  beginning  of  the  sixth  century,  the 
testimony  of  the  Fathers  regarding  this  point  is  so  full,  that  I 
can  only  quote  a  few  passages  from  their  numerous  works.  In 
my  examination  of  the  authority  of  the  early  church  writers,  I 
found  Protestant  controvertists,  in  many  cases,  claiming  their 
authority  against  this  tenet.  Of  course  they  were  obliged,  by 
every  rule  of  right,  reason,  and  justice,  to  specify  the  particular 
Fathers,  and  quote  from  their  works  the  passages,  at. least  in 


596  TRANSUBSTANTIATION". 

part,  that  were  alleged  to  be  opposed  to  this  doctrine.  My 
course  was  to  take  the  passage  from  a  particular  writer,  and 
keeping  in  view  the  practice  under  the  Discipline  of  the  Secret, 
and  making  a  due  allowance  for  the  circumstances  under  which 
the  author  wrote,  and  especially  the  precise  point  he  was  dis- 
cussing, to  compare  it  with  other  passages  from  the  same  author. 
No  author  speaks  with  the  same  certainty  in  all  places  ;  and  it 
is  only  by  comparing  all  he  says  upon  the  same  point  that  we 
can  hope  to  do  him  justice.  In  this  way  I  found  no  serious  diffi- 
culty. I  found  Protestant  writers  neglecting  the  Discipline  of 
the  Secret,  and  often  quoting  from  those  writings  of  the  Fathers, 
expressly  intended  for  strangers;  and,  therefore,  purposely 
general,  and  not  explicit  as  to  the  mysteries.  In  reference  to 
St.  Clement,  of  Alexandria,  certain  Protestant  writers  have  in- 
sisted that  this  Father  never  interpreted  the  language  of  the 
Sixth  of  John,  in  a  literal  sense,  and  to  prove  it,  they  quote 
from  his  allegorical  interpretation  of  that  chapter.  The  fact 
was,  that  this  Father  had  interpreted  this  chapter  in  both  a 
literal  and  figurative  sense,  and  after  giving  the  literal  sense, 
then  professedly  declares  the  other  interpretations  allegorical. 

St.  Clement,  of  Alexandria,  A.  D.  190:  "  Eat  my  flesh,  he 
saith,  and  drink  my  blood.  The  Lord  supplies  us  with  these 
befitting  aliments,  and  gives  flesh  and  pours  forth  blood ;  and 
nothing  is  wanting  for  the  children's  growth.  Oh  the  incredi- 
ble mystery."  (Pasdag.  1.  i.,  c.  vi.) 

Origen,  216  :  "  You  who  have  been  accustomed  to  be  present 
at  the  divine  mysteries,  know  that  when  you  receive  the  body 
of  the  Lord,  you  take  care,  with  all  caution  and  veneration,  lest 
any  part  thereof,  however  small,  should  fall,  lest  any  portion  of 
the  consecrated  gift  should  be  lost.  For  if  any  part  of  it  should 
fall,  through  your  negligence,  you  think  yourselves  guilty ;  and 
you  think  rightly."  (T.  ii.  Horn.  xiii.  in  Exod.  n.  3.) 

St.  Cyprian,  248  :  "The  mouths  sanctified  with  heavenly  food, 
after  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord  rejected  the  profane  con- 
taminations and  the  leavings  of  idols." 

"  The  fallen  against  the  upright,  and  the  wounded  against 
the  sound,  utters  threats  ;  and  because  he  does  not  at  once  re- 
ceive with  defiled  hands  the  Lord's  body,  or  drink  with  polluted 
month  the  Lord's  blood,  the  sacrilegious  is  wrathful  against  the 
priest's."  (De  Lapsis,  p.  372,  377,  380-382.) 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION.  597 

"  Since,  therefore,  he  says,  that  whosoever  shall  eat  of  his 
bread  shall  live  forever ;  and  as  it  is  manifest  that  those  live 
who  touch  his  body,  and  receive  the  eucharist  by  right  of  com- 
munication, so,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  to  be  feared,  and  is  mat- 
ter for  prayer,  lest  any  of  us,  who  while  cut  off  is  separated 
from  the  body  of  Christ,  remain  far  from  salvation,  according  to 
nis  threat  and  word :  Unless  you  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of 
Man,  and  drink  his  blood,  you  shall  not  have  life  in  you."  (De 
Orat.  Dom.,  p.  420-1.) 

St.  Cornelius,  252  :  "  When  he  (Novatian)  has  made  the  ob- 
lations, and  is  distributing  a  portion  to  each,  at  the  time  that  he 
gives  it,  instead  of  the  blessing,  he,  seizing  with  both  his  hands 
the  hands  of  the  communicant,  leaves  not  hold  until  each  pro- 
nounces this  oath  (for  I  will  give  his  own  words)  :  '  Swear  to 
me,  by  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  never  to 
desert  me,  or  to  return  to  Cornelius.' "  (Ep.  Corne.  ad  Fabium 
Episc.  Antioch.  ap.  Euseb.  H.  E.,  1.  vi.,  c.  43.) 

St.  Dionysius,  of  Alexandria,  258:  "An  individual  who  had 
been  baptized  by  heretics,  and  seeing  baptism  administered  in 
the  Catholic  Church,  was  struck  with  the  difference,  and  ap- 
plied to  St.  Dionysius  to  be  rebaptized.  He,  in  his  turn,  writes 
for  advice  to  Pope  Xystus  :  '  For  I  did  not  dare  to  renew  from  the 
beginning  one  who  had  heard  the  eucharists,  and  joined  in  the 
amen,  and  stood  by  the  table,  and  stretched  forth  his  hands  for 
the  reception  of  the  holy  food,  and  had  received  it,  and  who 
had  partaken,  for  a  considerable  time,  of  the  blood  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.  But  I  bade  him  be  of  good  courage,  and  with 
firm  faith  and  a  good  conscience  to  come  to  the  participation  of 
the-  holy  things.  But  he  ceases  not  from  his  grief,  and  trembles 
to  approach  the  holy  table  ;  and  can  scarcely  bear,  even  when 
requested,  to  be  present  at  the  prayers.' "  (Ep.  ad  Xystum,  p. 
163-5.) 

Eusebius,  325  :  "  And  they,  who  were  according  to  Moses, 
once  in  every  year  sacrificed  the  paschal  lamb  on  the  fourteenth 
of  the  first  month,  in  the  evening  ;  but  we,  who  are  of  the  New 
Testament,  on  every  Lord's  Day  celebrating  our  passover,  are 
unceasingly  filled  with  the  body  of  the  Lord,  we  unceasingly 
partake  of  the  blood  of  the  Lamb."  (Ex.  Tract,  de  Paschate,  t. 
i.,  p.  253-7.) 


598  TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 

St.  Theodore,  330  :  "  And  let  the  catechumens  who  are  in 
the  monasteries,  and  await  the  dread  remission  of  their  sins, 
and  the  grace  of  the  spiritual  mystery,  learn  from  you  that  it 
behooves  them  to  weep  over  and  bewail  their  former  sins,  and  to 
prepare  themselves  for  the  sanctification  of  their  souls  and 
bodies,  so  as  to  be  able  to  endure  the  blood  and  body  of  the 
Saviour  Lord,  to  think  of  which  is  even  terrible."  (Ep.  12,  t.  iv.) 

St.  James  of  Nisibis,  340 :  "  But  our  Lord  did  this  before 
he  was  apprehended,  and  leaving  the  place  where  he  made  the 
passover,  and  gave  his  own  body  that  they  might  eat,  and  his 
blood  that  they  might  drink,  he  went  with  his  disciples  to  the 
place  where  he  was  seized.  As,  therefore,  his  body  had  been 
eaten,  and  his  blood  drank,  he  was  reputed  to  be  among  the 
dead.  For  our  Lord,  with  his  own  hands,  gave  his  own  body 
for  food  ;  and  though  he  was  not  yet  crucified,  he  gave  his  own 
blood  for  drink."  (Serm.  xiv.  de  Pash.,  n.  4-6.) 

St.  Liberius,  Pope :  "  This  is  he,  who  with  five  loaves,  and 
two  fishes,  fed  four  thousand  of  the  people  in  the  desert.  lie 
could  have  fed  more,  had  there  been  more.  In  fine,  he  has 
called  many  to  the  nuptials,  but  now  not  bread  from  barley,  but 
a  body  is  served  out  from  heaven."  (Or.  in  Consecr.  Marcell. 
soror.  S.  Ambrosii.  n.  i.) 

St.  Hilary,  356  :  "  If,  then,  Christ  truly  assumed  the  flesh 
of  our  body,  and  the  man  that  was  born  of  Mary  is  truly  Christ, 
and  if  we  truly  receive  the  flesh  of  his  own  body  under  the  mys- 
tery, (and  through  this  we  shall  be  one,  because  the  Father  is  in 
him,  and  he  in  us,)  how  is  it  that  a  unity  of  will  is  asserted, 
whereas  the  natural  possession  (of  flesh)  through  a  sacrament,  is 
a  sacrament  of  perfect  unity  ?  " 

"  For  what  we  say  concerning  the  natural  verity  (very 
nature)  of  Christ  in  us,  unless  we  have  learned  it  from  him,  we 
say  it  foolishly  and  impiously.  For  himself  says,  My  flesh  is 
truly  meat,  and  my  blood  is  truly  drink.  He  that  eateth  my 
flesh  and  drinketh  my  blood  abideth  in  me,  and  I  in  him. 
(St.  John  vi.  56-7.)  Of  the  verity  of  the  flesh  and  blood,  there 
is  no  room  left  for  doubting.  For  now,  both  by  the  declara- 
tion of  the  Lord  himself,  and  by  our  faith,  it  is  truly  flesh  and 
it  is  truly  blood  ;  and  these  being  received  and  drunk  effect 
this,  that  both  we  are  in  Christ,  and  Christ  in  us.  Is  not  this 


TKANSUBSTANTIATION.  590 

the  truth  ?  Let  not  this  be  the  truth  for  those  who  deny  that 
Christ  Jesus  is  true  God.  He  is,  therefore,  himself  in  us  by 
means  of  flesh,  and  we  are  in  him ;  whilst  with  him,  that  which 
we  are,  is  in  God."  (De  Trinitate,  1.  viii.,  n.  13-17.) 

Council  of  Nice,  325  :  "  Neither  canon  nor  custom  has 
handed  down  that  they  who  have  not  authority  to  offer,  should 
give  the  body  of  Christ  to  those  who  do  offer."  (Con.  xviii.) 

St.  Athanasius,  362 :  In  his  discourse  to  the  baptized,  this 
great  saint  speaks  thus :  "  Thou  wilt  see  the  Levites  bearing 
bread  and  a  chalice  of  wine,  and  arranging  the  table :  as  long  as 
the  supplications  and  prayers  as  yet  take  not  place,  there  is 
simply  the  bread  and  the  cup ;  but  after  that  the  great  and 
marvellous  prayers  have  been  completed,  then  the  bread  is  the 
body,  and  the  cup  the  blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 

"  Let  us  come  to  the  perfection  of  the  mysteries.  This 
bread  and  this  cup  are  simply  such,  as  long  as  the  prayers  and 
supplications  have  not  as  yet  taken  place ;  but  after  tliat  the 
great  prayers  and  holy  supplications  have  been  sent  on  high,  the 
Word  descends  into  that  bread,  and  that  cup,  and  it  is  his 
body."  (Mail  Nov.  Collect.  Veter.  Script.  T.  ix.,  p.  625.) 

St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  363  :  Explaining  to  the  newly  bap- 
tized the  abjuration,  "  I  renounce  the  devil  and  all  his  pomps," 
he  says :  "  Moreover  things  hung  up  at  idol  festivals,  either 
meat,  or  bread,  or  other  such  things  which  are  polluted  by  the 
invocation  of  the  unclean  spirits,  are  classed  in  the  pomp  of  the 
devil.  For  as  the  bread  and  wine  of  the  Eucharist,  before  the 
invocation  of  the  adorable  Trinity,  was  simple  bread  and  wine, 
whereas,  after  the  invocation,  the  bread  becomes  Christ's  body 
and  the  wine  Christ's  blood,  so  in  like  manner  such  meats  per- 
taining to  the  pomp  of  Satan,  though  in  their  own  nature  sim- 
ple, become,  by  the  invocation  of  the  evil  spirits,  profane." 
(Catech.  Mystag.  i.  [xix.,]  n.  7.) 

In  another  catechetical  instruction  to  the  newly  baptized,  he 
says,  among  other  things :  "  He  himself  therefore  having  de- 
clared and  said  concerning  the  bread,  This  is  my  body,  who 
shall  dare  to  doubt  henceforward  ?  And  he  himself  having  set- 
tled and  said,  This  is  my  blood,  who  shall  ever  doubt,  saying, 
This  is  not  his  blood  ?  " 

"  Wherefore  do  not  contemplate  the  bread  and  the  wine  as 


600  TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 

bare  (elements),  for  they  are,  according  to  the  Lord's  declara- 
tion, Christ's  body  and  blood ;  for  even  though  sense  suggests 
this  to  thee,  yet  let  faith  stablish  thee.  Judge  not  the  thing 
from  the  taste,  but  from  faith  be  fully  assured  without  misgiv- 
ing, that  thou  hast  been  vouchsafed  Christ's  body  and  blood." 

"These  things  having  learned,  and  being  fully  persuaded 
that  what  seems  bread  is  not  bread,  even  though  sensible  to  the 
taste,  but  Christ's  body  ;  and  what  seems  wine  is  not  wine,  even 
though  the  taste  will  have  it  so,  but  Christ's  blood."  (Catech. 
Mystag.  v.  [al.  23,]  p.  331-2.) 

St.  Ephrem,  Syrus,  370 :  "  '  The  lion  shall  eat  straw  like  the 
ox?  (Is.  xi.  7.)  Because  the  just  as  well  as  sinners  eat  the 
living  body  which  is  upon  the  altar."  (T.  ii.  Part  2,  Syr.  Comm. 
in  Esai.) 

*  *  *  "  The  reality  was  by  our  Lord  exhibited,  when  on 
Mount  Zion  he  broke  his  own  body  and  distributed  his  blood, 
saying,  *  Do  this  in  commemoration  of  me.'  "  (Id.) 

"  The  Jewish  maidens  placed  their  glory  in  their  veils :  in  a 
like  veil  also  do  we  place  our  glory,  Christ's  blood,  which  is  of 
inappreciable  value.  The  assemblies  of  those  who  have  aban- 
doned the  right  path,  have  not  in  their  veils  the  blood  of  Christ ; 
they  who  believe  that  Jesus  has  no  body,  have  a  figure  of  his 
blood,  for  real  blood  will  be  found  to  be  there,  whence  a  real 
body  is  not  absent."  (T.  ii.  Syr.  Serm.  xlvii.  Adv.  Ha3reses.) 

"  Become  a  blameless  believer.  Partake  also  of  the  spotless 
body  of  the  Lord  with  ah1  faith,  having  a  most  full  assurance 
that  thou  sincerely  eatest  the  very  Lamb  himself"  *  *  *  "  But 
that  which  the  only-begotten  Jesus  Christ,  our  Saviour,  has  done 
for  us  transcends  every  thing,  both  apprehension  and  words." 
(T.  iii.  Gr.  Adv.  Scrutat.) 

St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  370  :  "  For  as  a  little  leaven,  accord- 
ing to  the  apostle,  assimilates  to  itself  the  whole  mass,  so,  wl^en 
that  body,  which  was  by  God  smitten  with  death,  is  within  our 
body,  it  changes  and  transfers  the  whole  to  itself."  (T.  iii.  Orat. 
Catech.  Magn.,  c.  37.) 

"  Again,  the  bread  is,  at  one  time, common  bread,  but,  when 
the  mystery  shall  have  made  it  sacred,  Christ's  body  it  is  both 
called  and  is."  (T.  iii.  in  Bapt.  chr.,  p.  369-71.)  "  The  ques- 
tion, therefore,  was,  how  the  body  of  Christ  in  each  man  gives 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION.  601 

life  to  the  whole  nature  of  those  men  in  whom  there  is  faith  ^ 
is  shared  amongst  all,  and  is  itself  not  lessened  ?  "  (T.  iii.  Orat. 
Catech.  Magn.,  c.  3V.) 

St.  Gregory  of  Nazianzum,  370  :  Speaking  of  Athanasius,  he 
says;  "  After  being  thus  nurtured  and  tutored,  as  beseems  men 
who  are  now  about  to  be  set  over  the  people,  and  to  handle 
the  mighty  body  of  Christ,"  &c.  (T.  i.  Or.  xxi.) 

Speaking  of  the  manner  in  which  the  Jews  eat  the  Paschal 
^amb,  and  his  application  of  that  type  to  our  Passover,  he  says : 
"  But  on  this  occasion  the  law  prescribes  to  thee  the  staff  that 
firmly  supports,  that  thou  mayest  neither  stagger  in  thy  reason, 
when  thou  nearest  of  the  blood  of  God,  and  of -his  passion  and 
death  ;  nor  involve  thyself  in  Atheism,  in  the  attempt  to  play  the 
defender  of  God,  but,  without  shame  or  doubt,  eat  the  body,  drink 
the  blood,  if  thou  desirest  life,  neither  disbelieving  what  is  said 
about  flesh,  nor  affected  rigorously  by  what  is  said  of  his  pas- 
sion." (Id.  Or.  xlii.) 

St.  Basil,  370 :  "  With  what  fear,  with  what  full  conviction, 
with  what  disposition,  should  we  partake  of  the  body  and  blood 
of  Christ  ?  The  fear  is  taught  us  by  the  apostle  when  he  says, 
He  that  eateth  and  drinketh  unworthily,  &c.  The  faith  of 
Christ's  words  produces  full  conviction,  seeing  that  he  says, 
This  is  my  body,  which  is  given  for  you.  Do  this  for  a  com- 
memoration of  me,"  &c.  (Reg.  Brev.  Interrog.  clxxii.  T.  ii.  P.  ii.) 

"  Rule  the  eighth. — That  we  ought  not  to  draw  distinctions, 
and  to  doubt  of  what  is  said  by  the  Lord,  but  be  fully  per- 
suaded Chat  every  word  of  God  is  true  and  possible,  even  though 
nature  repugn.  For  therein  is  the  struggle  of  faith.'*  As 
examples  he  adduces  Matt.  xiv.  25-31;  John  vi.  53-4:  The 
Jews  strove  among  themselves,  saying,  how  can  this  man  give 
us  his  flesh  to  eat?  &c.  (Luke  i.  13,  18-20;  Rom.  iv.  19-22 
T.  ii.  P.  i.  Horn.  Moralia.) 

St.  Macarius  of  Egypt,  371 :  *  *  *  "But  the  children  whom 
ho  has  begotten  of  his  own  seed,  and  whom  he  has  made  par- 
takers  of  his  grace,  in  whom  the  Lord  has  been  formed,  he 
nurtures  with  a  peculiar  aliment  and  food  and  drink,  differing 
from  that  of  the  rest  of  men,  and  he  gives  himself  to  those  who 
have  their  conversation  with  their  Father,  according  to  that  say- 
52 


602  TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 

ing  of  the  Lord,  He  that  eateth  my  flesh  and  drinketh  my  blood> 
abideth  in  me,  and  shall  not  see  death."  (Horn,  xiv.,  n.  4.) 

B.  Isaias,  372 :  "  If  thou  desirest  to  receive  the  body  of 
Christ,  have  care  that  thou  bear  not  in  thy  heart  either  anger 
or  hatred  against  any  individual."  (Orat.  Reg.  ad  Mon.,  n.  50.) 

St.  Pacian,  372:  "  One  guilty  of  (taking)  human  life  could 
not  be  absolved :  shall  the  violator  of  the  body  of  the  Lord 
escape  ?  "  (Param.  ad  Poenit.,  n.  7.) 

B.  Jerom,  385  :  "  Many  also  of  those  who  live  in  the  world 
feel  this  energizing  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  I  mean  those 
who  assist  at  the  altar,  and  those  who  approach  to  partake  of 
the  mysteries  of  Christ,  for  of  a  sudden  they  are  filled  with  joy, 
and  tears,  and  gladness.  Wherefore  the  Christian  is  fully  con- 
vinced that  he  partakes  not  of  mere  bread  and  wine,  but  of  the 
body  in  verity,  and  the  blood  of  the  Son  of  God,  sanctified  by 
the  Holy  Spirit."  (Comment,  util.) 

St.  Siricius,  Pope,  386  : — Speaking  of  apostates  he  says : 
"  Such  we  order  to  be  cut  off  from  Christ's  body  and  blood, 
with  which,  in  times  past,  they  were  at  the  new  birth  redeemed." 
(Ep.  ad  Himn.,  n,  4.) 

Theophilus  of  Alexandria,  387  :  "  From  this  it  is  manifest 
that  Christ  could  not  have  been  crucified  for  demons,  lest  de- 
mons might  be  partakers  of  his  body  and  blood."  (Epis.  Pash., 
n.  xi.) 

St.  Epiphanius,  385  :  "  For  the  only-begotten  has  come, 
and  so  holds  our  mother  the  church,  that  tranquil  harbor  of 
peace,  our  joy,  she  that  breatheth  of  the  cypress  of  the  vine, 
(cant.  i.  14,)  and  she  that  beareth  to  us  that  grape-cluster  of  the 
eulogy,  and  daily  gladdens  us  with  that  care-dispelling  drink, 
Christ's  blood,  unmingled,  true."  (T.  i.  Adv.  Haeres.  [Expos. 
Fid.]  p.  1096-7.) 

St.  Ambrose,  385  :  "  Look  to  what  thou  art  doing,  oh  priest, 
and  touch  not  Christ's  body  with  a  fevered  hand."  (T.  ii.,  1.  i. 
De  Vid.,  c.  x.,  n.  65.) 

"Perhaps  thou  wilt  say,  'Isee  a  different  thing;  how  is  it 
that  you  assert  to  me  that  I  receive  the  body  of  Christ  ?  '  Tt 
yet  remains  for  us  to  prove  this  also." 

44  Now  if  human  benediction  availed  so  much  to  change  na- 
ture, what  shall  we  say  concerning  the  divine  consecration  itself, 


Tit  AN  SUBSTANTIATION.  603 

where  the  very  words  of  the  Saviour  operate  ?  For  this  sacra- 
ment which  thou  receivest  is  effected  by  the  word  of  Christ. 
Now  if  the  word  of  Elias  so  availed  as  to  draw  down  fire  from 
heaven,  shall  not  the  word  of  Christ  be  of  avail  to  change  the 
natures  (species)  of  the  elements  ?  Concerning  the  works  of 
the  whole  world,  you  have  read  He  spake  and  they  were  made ; 
He  commanded  and  they  were  created ;  the  word,  therefore, 
of  Christ,  which  could,  out  of  nothing,  make  that  which  was 
not,  cannot  it  change  those  things  which  are,  into  that  which 
they  were  not  ?  " 

"  Why  seekest  thou  here  the  order  of  nature  in  the  body  of 
Christ,  when  the  Lord  Jesus  himself  was,  contrary  to  nature, 
born  of  a  virgin  ?  Real,  in  truth,  was  Christ's  flesh  that  was 
crucified,  that  was  buried  ;  therefore  is  this  really  the  sacrament 
of  that  flesh."  (T.  ii.  De  Mysteriis,  c.  viii.-ix.) 

Marius  Victorinus,  390  :  *  *  *  "  For  if  what  we  receive  is 
the  body  of  Christ,  and  Christ  is  life,  we  ask  for  supersubstan- 
tial  bread,  for  riches  dwell  in  Christ  bodily."  (L.  ii.  Adv.  Arian, 
n.  8.) 

St.  Paulinus,  395.  Describing  the  death  of  St.  Ambrose,  he 
says :  "  Having  come  down,  he  (the  priest)  presented  to  the 
saint  the  body  of  the  Lord,  which,  when  he  had  received  and 
swallowed,  he  gave  up  the  ghost,  taking  with  him  a  good  viati- 
cum, that  his  soul,  being  more  refreshed  by  virtue  of  this  food, 
might  now  be  gladdened  with  the  companionship  of  angels, 
whose  life  he  led  on  earth."  (Vita  S.  Ambros.  [Int.  ap.  S. 
Ambr.]  n.  47.  T.  ii.  p.  xii.) 

St.  Jerom,  390 :  "  But  let  us  understand  that  the  bread 
which  the  Lord  broke,  and  gave  to  his  disciples,  is  the  body  of 
the  Lord,  the  Saviour  himself  saying  to  them,  Take,  eat,  this  is 
my  body ;  and  that  the  chalice  is  that  concerning  which  he 
again  spoke :  Drink  ye  all  of  this ;  for  this  is  my  blood  of  the 
New  Testament  which  shall  be  shed  for  many."  (T.  i.  Ep. 
cxx.  ad  Hedebiam,  n.  ii.) 

"No  one  can  understand  the  sacraments  of  the  passion  of  the 
Lord,  and  of  his  body  and  blood,  according  to  the  majesty  of 
the  thing."  (T.  v.,  1.  xiii.) 

"Besides,  we  already  know  that  wine  is  consecrated  into 
the  blood  of  Christ."  (T.  vii.  Comm.  in  Galat.) 


604  TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 

St.  John  Chrysostorn,  387:  "When  you  are  about  to  ap- 
proach to  the  dread  and  divine  table,  and  the  sacred  mystery, 
do  it  with  fear  ;md  trembling,  with  a  pure  conscience,  with 
fasting  and  prayer.  *  *  *  Reflect,  O  man,  what  a  sacrifice  thou 
art  about  to  touch  ;  what  a  table  thou  art  going  to  approach  : 
think  that  though  dust  and  ashes,  thou  receivest  Christ's  bodj 
and  blood."  (T.  ii.  In  Divin.  Nat.  Jesu  Christ,  n.  7.) 

"  For  whilst  they  were  eating  and  drinking,  having  taken 
bread,  he  brake,  and  said,  This  is  my  body  which  is  broken  for 
you  for  the  remission  of  sins.  The  initiated  understood  what  is 
said.  And  again  the  chalice,  saying,  This  is  my  blood  which  is 
shed  for  many  for  the  remission  of  sins.  And  Judas  was  pres- 
ent when  Christ  said  this.  This  is  that  body  which  thou  hast 
sold,  oh  Judas,  for  thirty  pieces  of  silver :  this  is  that  blood  for 
which,  a  little  while  since,  thou  hast  made  that-  shameful  bargain 
with  the  impious  Pharisees.  Oh,  the  loving  kindness  of  Christ ! 
Oh,  the  folly,  the  madness  of  Judas !  for  Judas  sold  him  for 
thirty  pieces  of  silver ;  but  Christ,  even  after  this,  refused  not 
to  give  that  very  same  blood  that  was  sold,  for  the  remission  of 
his  sins  that  sold  it,  had  he  but  wished  it.  Judas  was  present, 
and  was  a  sharer  of  that  sacred  table.  *  *  *  But  it  is  at  length 
time  to  approach  to  this  awful  table.  Wherefore  let  us  come 
unto  it  with  becoming  sobriety  and  watchfulness :  and  let  no 
one  be  any  longer  a  Judas ;  no  one  wicked  ;  no  one  envenomed ; 
no  one  bearing  one  thing  on  his  lips  and  another  in  his  mind. 
Christ  is  present,  and  now  he  that  set  forth  that  table,  the  same 
sets  forth  this  now.  For  it  is  not  man  that  makes  the  things 
that  lie  to  open  view  become  Christ's  body  and  blood,  but  that 
same  Christ  that  was  crucified  for  us.  The  priest  fulfilling  his 
office,  stands  pronouncing  these  words :  but  the  power  and  the 
grace  is  of  God.  This  is  my  body,  he  says.  This  word  trans- 
mutes  the  things  that  lie  to  open  view.  And  as  that  word  that 
said,  Increase  and  multiply  and  fill  the  earth,  was  pronounced 
indeed  but  once,  but  through  all  time  is  actually  operative  on 
our  nature  for  the  procreation  of  children ;  so  also,  that  word 
uttered  but  once,  makes  from  that  time  to  this,  and  till  his  own 
advent,  the  sacrifice  perfect,  at  every  table  in  the  churches.1' 
(T.  ii.  Horn.  i.  de  Prodit.  Judge,  n.  5,  6.) 

"  Wherefore  let  us  on  every  occasion  obey  God,  and  gainsay 


TRANS  INSTANTIATION.  605 

nothing,  even  though  what  is  said  seem  contrary  to  our  reason- 
JP^  and  sight ;  but  let  his  word  be  more  powerful  than  both, 
than  reasoning  and  sight.  Even  so  let  us  act  in  the  matter  of 
the  mysteries  ;  not  looking  on  the  things  laid  out,  but  holding 
fast  his  words.  For  his  word  is  incapable  of  being  deceived ; 
but  our  senses  are  very  easily  deceived."  (T.  vii.  Horn.  82,  in 
Matt.  n.  i.  4-6.) 

St.  Gaudentius  of  Brescia,  387 :  "  Wherefore  that  same 
creator  and  Lord  of  nature,  who,  out  of  earth,  produces  bread, 
out  of  bread  again  (for  he  is  both  able,  and  has  promised)  makes 
his  proper  body;  and  he  who,  out  of  water,  made  wine,  also 
out  of  wine  made  his  own  blood." 

"For  when  he  was  delivering  the  consecrated  bread  and 
wine  to  his  disciples,  he  thus  says :  This  is  my  body  ;  this  is 
my  blood.  Let  us  believe,  I  beseech  you,  him  in  whom  we 
have  believed.  Truth  cannot  lie."  (De  Paschae  Observ.  Tr.  ii. 
T.  v.  Bib.  Maxim.) 

Fourth  Council  of  Carthage  :  "  That  a  deacon,  if  or- 
dered, may,  in  the  presence  of  a  priest,  administer  the  eucha- 
rist  of  the  body  of  Christ  to  the  people,  if  necessity  require 
it."  (Con.  xxxviii.) 

St.  Augustine,  400  :  "  The  Jewish  sacrifice  was  formerly,  as 
you  know,  according  to  the  order  of  Aaron,  in  victims  of  ani- 
mals, and  this  in  a  mystery ;  as  yet  the  sacrifice  of  the  body  and 
blood  of  the  Lord  was  not,  which  the  faithful,  and  they  who 
have  read  the  Gospel,  understand,  which  sacrifice  is  now  diffused 
throughout  the  whole  world." 

"  But  whence  did  he  intrust  to  us  his  body  and  blood  ? 
Out  of  his  humility.  For  unless  he  were  humble,  he  would 
neither  be  eaten  nor  drunk." 

"  And  he  was  borne  in  his  own  hands.  Now,  how  this  can 
be  done  by  any  man,  who  can  understand  ?  For  who  is  carried 
in  his  own  hands  ?  By  the  hands  of  others  a  man  may  be  car- 
ried, but  by  his  own  hands  no  one  is  carried.  How  it  may  be 
understood  literally  in  David  himself  we  find  not,  but  we  do 
find  in  Christ.  For  Christ  was  carried  in  his  own  hands  ;  when 
committing  to  us  his  own  very  body,  he  says,  This  is  my  body. 
For  he  carried  that  body  in  his  own  hands."  (T.  iv.  Enarr.  in 
Ps.  xxxiii.  Serm.  1,  n.  5,  6,  7,  8,  10.) 


606  TK  AN  SUBSTANTIATION. 

"  The  bread  which  you  see  on  the  altar,  after  being  sanc- 
tified by  the  word  of  God,  is  the  body  of  Christ.  That 
chalice — yea,  rather  that  which  the  chalice  contains — after  be- 
ing sanctified  by  the  word  of  God,  is  the  blood  of  Christ." 
(T.  v.  Serra.  ccxxvii.  ad  Infantes,  De  Sacramentis,  in  Die. 
Pashae,  n.  1.) 

St.  Nilus,  448 :  "  Before,  indeed,  the  prayer  of  the  priest, 
and  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  things  that  lie  to  open 
view  are  plain  bread  and  common  wine ;  but  after  these  awful 
invocations,  and  the  advent  of  the  adorable,  and  vivifying,  and 
good  Spirit,  the  things  that  lie  upon  the  holy  table  are  no  longer 
plain  bread  and  common  wine,  but  the  precious  and  immaculate 
body  and  blood  of  Christ  the  God  of  all,  which  (body  and  blood) 
purify  from  every  defilement  those  who  partake  thereof  with 
much  fear  and  eagerness."  (L.  Ep.  xliv.) 

St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  428:  *  *  *  "  The  hypostatic  wis- 
dom of  God  the  Father,  that  built  for  itself  a  temple  not  made 
with  hands,  distributes  its  body  as  bread,  and  bestows  its  life- 
giving  blood  as  wine.  Fearful  mystery  !  Oh,  ineffable  dispen- 
sation !  Oh,  humility  incomprehensible !  Oh,  goodness  un- 
searchable !  The  Creator  sets  himself  before  the  work  of  his 
hands  to  be  partaken  of;  the  Self-existent  gives  himself  to  mor- 
tals for  food  and  drink." 

"But  if  Christ's  body  be  food,  and  Christ's  blood  be  drink, 
and  he  be,  as  they  pretend,  a  mere  man,  why  is  he  proclaimed 
as  being  unto  everlasting  life,  to  those  who  draw  nigh  to  the 
sacred  table  ?  And  how  does  he  dwell  both  there  and  every- 
where, and  is  not  made  less  ?  A  mere  body  is  in  no  way  the 
source  of  life  to  those  who  partake  of  it."  (T.  v.  Par.  ii.  Horn, 
in  Mystic.  Coenam.) 

I  will  close  these  extended  extracts  with  the  following  beau- 
tiful passage  from  Eusebius  of  the  Latin  Church: 

"  A  victim  veritably  one  and  perfect,  not  to  be  estimated 
by  its  appearance,  but  by  faith ;  not  to  be  valued  by  the  eye 
of  the  outward  man,  but  by  inward  affection.  Hence  does  the 
authority  of  heaven  assure  us,  That  my  flesh  is  meat  indeed, 
and  my  blood  is  drink  indeed.  Away,  then,  with  every  doubt 
of  unbelief,  seeing  that  he  who  is  the  author  of  the  gift,  is  him- 
self the  witness  of  the  truth.  For  the  invisible  priest,  by  his 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION.  607 

secret  power,  converts,  by  his  own  word,  the  visible  creatures 
into  the  substance  of  his  own  body  and  blood,  saying  thus,  Take 
and  eat,  for  this  is  my  body,  and  after  the  sanctification  has 
been  repeated,  Take  and  drink,  this  is  my  blood.  Therefore, 
as  at  the  nod  of  the  commanding  Lord,  there  at  once  sprang 
into  existence  out  of  nothing,  the  lofty  heavens,  the  deep  waves, 
the  vast  earth ;  with  equal  potency  does  the  power  of  the  word 
command,  and  the  realized  effect  obeys."  (De  Pash.  Horn,  vii., 
t.  vi.) 

I  have  passed  over  the  testimonies  of  a  number  of  Fathers, 
and  have  given  those  of  the  more  distinguished.  It  will  be 
seen,  upon  inspection,  to  be  very  explicit.  They  not  only  speak 
of  the  literal  view,  "  without  hesitation,  doubt,  or  apology,"  but 
they  often  expressly  say  that  the  initiated  understand  what  they 
state — that  it  is  the  faith  of  the  church.  They  also,  in  many 
cases,  treat  the  doctrine  as  admitted  by  their  opponents,  (the 
heretics,)  and  from  it  they  make  deductions  in  support  of  other 
doctrines,  particularly  those  of  the  Trinity  and  resurrection  of 
the  dead.  They  also  speak  of  the  Eucharist  as  a  great  and  aw- 
ful mystery,  and  ascribe  to  it  spiritual  graces,  wholly  irrecon- 
cilable with  any  other  than  the  literal  view.  And  they  urge 
the  faithful  to  trust  the  Word  of  God,  and  not  their  senses. 
They  also  quote  the  words,  This  is  my  body,  and  give  them  an 
emphasis  that  could  not  belong  to  them,  except  when  taken 
literally.  In  short,  the  whole  drift  and  spirit,  as  well  as  the  ex- 
press words  of  these  holy  and  venerable  Ancients,  most  clearly 
do  prove  to  my  mind,  that  the  doctrine  was  universally  held  by 
the  Church  of  their  day;  and  not  only  by  the  Church  itself,  but 
by  many  of  the  heretics  of  that  time.  For,  when  any  of  these 
writers,  in  their  controversies  with  heretics,  assume  this  doctrine 
as  admitted,  they  not  only  assume  to  state  the  faith  of  the 
Church,  but  also  that  of  their  opponents.  When  they  treat  it 
as  conceded  ground,  it  could  only  be  reconcilable  with  the  fact, 
that  it  was  held  by  both  parties.  It  was  so  held  by  the  Nova- 
tians  and  Donatists.  In  their  catechetical  instructions  to  the 
newly  baptized,  the  Fathers  are  explicit  in  stating  when  and 
how  the  change  occurs  in  the  elements,  and  by  whose  word  and 
power  it  is  produced. 

It  is  true,  that  many  of  the  Fathers,  in  imitation  of  Christ 


60S  TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 

and  His  apostles,  give  the  same  passage  different  interpretations, 
but  which  are  still  compatible  with  each  other.  Examples  oc- 
cur in  Scripture,  where  the  passage  or  incident  has  two  mean- 
ings. The  Fathers  often  gave  both  a  literal  and  figurative 
meaning  to  the  same  passage.  This  was  the  case  with  St. 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  and  others.  Protestant  writers,  in  quot- 
ing from  the  Fathers,  have  overlooked  the  Discipline  of  the 
Secret,  and  also  the  circumstance  now  mentioned,  and  have, 
therefore,  produced  passages  seemingly  confirmatory  of  the 
figurative  sense,  or  at  most  equivocal.  In  this  way  they  have 
often  claimed  the  authority  of  certain  Fathers,  who  most  clearly 
maintain  the  literal  sense,  such  as  St.  Ambrose,  St.  John  Chry- 
sostom,  St.  Augustin,  Theodoret,  and  others.  In  many  cases  the 
quotations  are  against  the  figurative  view,  but  are  made  to  sup- 
port it  by  a  misconstruction.  But  when  these  doubtful  passages 
are  collated  with  those  that  are  clear  and  explicit,  the  intention 
becomes  so  evident,  that  it  would  seem  to  admit  of  no  doubt 
whatever. 

The  only  case  that  seemed  to  present  any  reasonable  diffi- 
culty to  my  mind,  was  that  of  Tertullian,  A.  D.  195.  He  is 
claimed  as  an  authority  for  both  sides.  In  his  works  intended 
for  the  faithful,  he  seems  clearly  to  speak  of  the  literal  sense. 

"  The  flesh  is  fed  with  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  that 
the  soul  also  may  be  fattened  of  God."  (De  Resurrect.  Carnis., 
n.  8.) 

But  when  he  is  arguing  against  Marcian,  who  denied  the 
reality  of  Christ's  body,  and  maintained  that  He  had  a  body  in 
appearance  only,  Tertullian  uses  language,  which,  taken  by 
tself,  would  seem  clearly  to  prove  the  figurative  view.  The 
passage  quoted  by  Protestants  is  this  : 

"The  bread  received  and  distributed  to  the  Disciples,  he 
made  it  his  own  body,  by  saying,  This  is  my  body ;  that  is,  a 
figure  of  my  body.  But  there  would  not  have  been  a  figure 
unless  there  were  a  body  of  veritable  reality."  (Adv.  Marcian, 
1.  v.,  n.  40-1.) 

In  the  context  this  Father  assumes  that  bread  was  an  ancient 
figure  of  the  body  of  Christ,  and  quotes  Jeremias  to  prove  it. 
The  point  of  his  argument  being  to  prove  the  reality  of  Christ's 
body,  was  as  well  maintained  by  holding  the  figurative  as  the 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION.  609 

literal  view  of  the  words,  This  is  my  body.  If  either  view  be 
true,  Marcian  was  wrong.  As  the  object  of  Tertullian  was  to 
convince  the  Marcianites,  while  at  the  same  time  he  did  not  ex- 
pose this  mystery  to  their  contempt  and  ridicule,  he  may  have 
assumed  the  figurative  sense,  under  the  influence  of  the  Secret 
Discipline.  The  figurative  sense  would  answer  all  the  purposes 
intended,  without  incurring  any  danger  of  injury.  Whether  he 
assumed  the  figurative  sense  in  obedience  to  the  Discipline  of 
the  Secret,  or  whether  his  meaning  is  explained  by  the  context, 
and  shows  him  to  have  intended  the  literal  sense,  or  purposely 
to  leave  it  doubtful,  are  questions  that  may  admit  of  reasonable 
controversy. 

But  there  are  considerations  and  circumstances,  independent 
of  his  language,  which  would  seem  to  put  the  matter  at  rest. 
That  he  was  very  strict  in  his  observance  of  the  Discipline  of 
the  Secret,  is  shown  by  the  extract  already  given  from  him,  to 
prove  its  existence  in  the  Ancient  Church.  He  afterwards  be- 
came a  Montanist,  and  while  his  errors  in  that  respect  were  con- 
demned, I  am  not  aware  that  he  was  ever  accused  of  error  in 
regard  to  the  Real  Presence.  By  the  church  historians  his  real 
sentiments  were  always  held  as  those  of  the  other  Fathers,  and 
as  sustaining  the  literal  sense.  The  fact  that  no  discussions 
arose  upon  this  point — that  no  excommunications  were  made,  is, 
under  the  circumstances,  a  very  strong  proof  that  the  Fathers 
all  held  the  same  doctrine. 

Another  circumstance  of  a  very  clear  character  is  the  fact 
that  the  ancient  Christians,  before  and  after  the  days  of  Ter- 
tullian,  were  charged  with  feasting  upon  the  flesh  of  infants. 
St.  Justin  Martyr  says  in  his  Apology,  "  We  are  so  far  from  com- 
mitting any  injustice  or  impiety  (as  implied  in  the  charge  of  de- 
vouring children),  that  we  have  learned  that  none  but  wicked 
men  expose  infants  when  they  were  born."  And  Tertullian 
says :  "  Oh  !  how  great  the  glory  of  that  magistrate  who  should 
hunt  out  one  who  has  already  eaten  an  hundred  infants." 
(Apol.  n.  2.)  "  We  are  said  to  be  the  most  accursed  of  men,  as 
touching  a  sacrament  of  child  murder,  and  thereon  to  feast," 
&c.  (Apol.  1.  c.) 

This  charge  must  have  arisen  from  the  doctrine  of  the  Real 
Presence,  and  from  an  erroneous  conception  of  the  nature  of  that 
53 


610  TRANSU  INSTANTIATION. 

doctrine,  and  of  the  mariner  of  Christ's  presence,  as  understood 
by  the  Christians.  And,  the  very  fact  that  the  Eucharist  was 
considered  a  mystery,  can  only  be  accounted  for  upon  the 
hypothesis  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence  was  held 
to  be  true.  Unless  this  doctrine  was  in  fact  held  to  bf»  true, 
there  could  have  been,  it  would  seem,  no  sufficient  reason 
to  place  the  Eucharist  among  the  mysteries  at"  all,  much 
less  to  conceal  it  from  the  Pagans,  and  even  from  the  catechu- 
mens. 

The  language  of  Luther  in  regard  to  the  consent  and  au- 
thority of  the  Fathers  in  support  of  the  literal  sense,  is  very 
forcible. 

"  That  no  one  among  the  Fathers,"  says  he,  "  numerous  as 
they  are,  should  have  spoken  of  the  Eucharist,  as  these  men  do, 
is  truly  astonishing.  Not  one  of  them  speaks  thus :  There  is 
only  bread  and  wine  :  or,  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  not 
present.  And,  when  we  reflect  how  often  the  subject  is  treated 
by  them,  it  ceases  to  be  credible,  it  is  not  even  possible,  that 
not  so  much  as  once,  such  words  as  these  should  have  dropped 
from  some  of  them.  Surely  it  was  of  moment  that  men  should 
not  be  drawn  into  error.  Still,  they  all  speak  with  such  pre- 
cision, evincing  that  they  entertained  no  doubt  of  the  presence 
of  the  body  and  blood  !  Had  this  not  been  their  conviction, 
can  it  be  imagined  that,  among  so  many,  the  negative  opinion 
should  not  have  been  uttered  on  a  single  occasion  ?  On  other 
points  this  was  not  the  case.  But  our  Sacrament arians,  on  the 
other  hand,  can  proclaim  only  the  negative  or  contrary  opinion. 
These  men,  then,  to  say  all  in  one  word,  have  drawn  their  no- 
tions neither  from  the  Scriptures  nor  the  Fathers."  (Defensio 
verborum — Coena3,  T.  viii.,  p.  391.  Edit.  Wittemb.  1557,  cited 
Con.  H.  &B.  317.) 

And  it  certainly  is  most  unaccountable  that,  while  so  many 
Fathers  have,  beyond  all  question,  maintained  the  literal  sense, 
in  terms  too  plain  to  be  misunderstood,  that  no  one  opposed  to 
such  a  view  could  ever  be  found  to  say  in  plain,  explicit,  nega- 
tive terms,  "  The  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  not  present." 
Certainly,  if  those  who  did  support  the  literal  sense,  did  speak 
in  plain  terms,  those  who  did  oppose  it,  if  any,  ought  -to  have 
spoken  in  terms  equally  explicit.  An  explicit  and  plain  affirrna- 


TBANSUBSTANTIATION.  611 

live  assertion  of  such  a  doctrine,  would  instantly  produce  as 
plain  and  explicit  a  negative,  if  such  was  intended.  A  direct 
negative  must  be  the  opposite  of  any  direct  proposition,  and 
would  naturally  be  expressed  in  opposite  terms,  and,  therefore, 
be  equally  plain. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

PENANCE,    PURGAT'ORY    AN.D     INDULGENCES, 
§  1.  The  General  Nature  of  the  Sacrament  of  Penance. 

THAT  the  great  end  and  purpose  of  the  mission  of  Christ, 
was  to  rescue  fallen  man  from  sin,  must  be  conceded  by  all  who 
really  believe  in  His  divine  character.  That  the  blood  of  Christ 
was  most  ample  to  perfect  the  new  law,  and  put  it  in  a  shape  for 
practical  administration,  in  this  present  mode  of  our  existence, 
must  also  be  conceded.  As  we  have  before  insisted,  the  mercy 
of  Christ  was  displayed  in  perfecting  the  system  itself,  but  when 
it  was  once  adopted  it  became  a  matter  of  irrevocable  promise — 
a  matter  of  law.  As  judged  by  this  law,  (which  law  is  the  re- 
sult of  free  grace,)  we  can  merit  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  Our 
obedience  to  this  law  will  entitle  us  to  apply  the  merits  of  Christ 
to  ourselves.  He  says,  substantially :  "  If  you  will  obey  this 
law,  you  may  cah1  my  merit  your  own,  and  receive  the  reward 
accordingly." 

We  shall  assume  that  man,  under  the  law  of  Christ,  does 
possess  free  agency — that  he  can  commit  sins  before  baptism — 
that  he  can  commit  them  afterwards — and  that  he  can  obtain 
forgiveness  in  both  cases. 

That  baptism  is  for  the  remission  of  past  sins,  is  clear  from 
the  simple  and  explicit  statement  of  St.  Peter  to  the  believing 
Jews  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  They  cried  out :  "  What  shall 
we  do?"  and  St.  Peter  promptly  answered:  "Repent  and  be 
baptized  for  the  remission  of  sins."  He  did  not  tell  them  to 
believe,  because  he  saw  that  they  did  already  believe  ;  and  he, 
therefore,  did  not  do  that  which  would  have  been  idle.  Now 
it  is  clear  that  either  baptism  and  repentance  are  both  required 


THE  SACRAMENT  OF  PENANCE.  613 

for  the  remission  of  sins,  or  that  neither  is.  If  we  can  take  out 
baptism,  we  can  take  away  repentance.  They  are  both  closely 
joined  together  by  the  copulative  conjunction,  and  must  form 
requisites  to  remission  of  sins.  The  language  is  clear  and  ex 
plicit. 

When  we  look  into  the  system  of  Christ,  we  see  that  He 
instituted  a  visible  association  of  men,  to  which  He  gave  a  code 
of  law  for  the  government  of  each  member,  and  of  the  whole — 
that  He  bestowed  upon  the  officers  of  this  visible  continuing 
corporation,  all  the  necessary  powers  to  enforce  the  practical 
operation  of  His  law  in  this  world.  We  see  that  He  used  men 
as  His  agents,  for  the  application  of  the  law  to  particular  cases. 
For  this  reason  He  instituted  external  visible  ordinances  or 
sacraments,  as  channels  of  grace  and  remission.  The  adminis- 
tration of  these  is  committed  to  the  officers  of  his  own  kingdom. 
It  could  not,  in  the  very  nature  of  things,  have  been  otherwise. 
If  we  once  concede  Christ  to  have  been  a  lawgiver  at  all,  then 
we  must  concede  that  a  visible  organization  of  those  submitting 
to  His  government  would  follow — that  visible  sacraments  must 
exist  in  a  visible  Church  ;  and  that  where  those  sacraments  do 
exist,  the  only  purpose  they  can  exist  for,  must  be  as  channels 
of  grace  and  remission.  If  a  lawgiver,  Christ  must  administer 
His  own  law  ;  either  directly  by  himself,  or  through  His  agents 
or  officers. 

If,  then,  the  visible  external  sacrament  of  baptism  was  given 
for  the  remission  of  past  sins,  and  this  sacrament  cannot  be  re- 
peated, is  it  not  necessary,  in  the  very  nature  of  Christ's  beauti- 
ful and  harmonious  system,  that  another  visible  sacrament 
should  exist  for  the  remission  of  sins  committed  after  baptism  ? 
Are  not  sins  committed  after  baptism  as  great,  if  not  greater, 
than  the  same  sins  when  committed  before  baptism,  and  equally 
as  difficult  to  remit  ?  Is  not  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper 
intended  for  believers  only  ? 

With  regard  to  the  faith  of  the  Catholic  Church  in  reference 
to  this  sacrament,  we  shall  quote  the  language  of  Dr.  Wiseman, 
as  found  in  his  Moorfield  Lectures,  vol.  2,  p.  10  : 

"  We  believe,  therefore,  that  the  sacrament  of  penance  is 
composed  of  three  parts — contrition,  or  sorrow — confession,  or 
its  outward  manifestation — and  satisfaction,  which,  in  some  re- 


614:  THE  SAORAMENT  OF  PENANCE. 

spects,  is  a  guarantee  of  perseverance  in  that  which  we 
promise." 

By  contrition  the  Catholic  Church  means  all  that  any  other 
Church  means  by  repentance.  The  Catholic  Church,  therefore, 
not  only  requires  all  that  any  other  Church  does,  but  also  the 
additional  requisites  of  confession  and  satisfaction.  And  all 
those  must  be  performed  worthily,  in  order  to  obtain  the  grace 
of  the  sacrament. 

The  practice  and  necessity  of  confession  were  required  by 
the  old  dispensation.  We  are  told  that  the  Lord  commanded 
Moses  to  "  Speak  unto  the  children  of  Israel,  when  a  man  or 
woman  shall  commit  any  sin  that  men  commit,  to  do  a  trespass 
against  the  Lord,  and  the  person  be  guilty,  they  shall  confess 
their  sin  which  they  have  done."  (Numbers  v.  6,  7.)  And 
they  were  not  only  required  to  confess,  but  to  make  satisfaction. 
(Leviticus  v.,  Numbers  v.)  So  Joshua  said  to  Achan  :  "  My 
son,  give,  I  pray  thee,  glory  to  the  Lord  God  of  Israel,  and 
make  confession  unto  him ;  and  tell  me  now  what  thou  hast 
done  ;  and  hide  it  not  from  me."  (Josh.  vii.  19.)  "He  that 
covereth  his  sins  shall  not  prosper ;  but  whoso  confesseth  and 
forsaketh  them  shall  have  mercy."  (Prov.  xxviii.  13.) 

It  is  perfectly  natural  that  the  proud  should  consider  con- 
fession as  a  burden,  while  it  is  equally  natural  that  the  humble 
should  esteem  it  as  a  privilege.  The  truly  humble  penitent  will 
naturally  seek  relief  in  confession.  We  see  this  proven  by 
general  experience.  The  most  penitent  criminals  are  always 
most  willing  to  make  a  true  confession  of  their  crimes.  The 
tribunal  of  confession  is  a  kind  retreat  for  the  truly  sorrowing. 
It  was  given  by  our  Lord,  in  compassion  to  those  who  take  up 
their  cross,  and  meekly  follow  Him,  as  He  required. 

§  2.  Did  Christ  confer  upon  the  Apostles  the  powers  to  remit 
and  retain  sins  f 

After  our  Lord  had  risen  from  the  grave,  and  before  He 
ascended  into  heaven,  He  said  unto  His  disciples : 

"  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost :  whose  soever  sins  ye  remit  (in 
the  Douay  Bible  forgive)  they  are  remitted  unto  them;  and 
whose  soever  sins  ye  retain,  they  are  retained."  (John  xx.  23.) 

The  sense  is  the  same  in  both  translations,  as  to  remit  and 


THE  SACKAMKNT  OF  PENANCE.  615 

forgive  sins,  mean  the  same  thing.  That  an  entire  forgiveness 
was  meant,  cannot  be  doubted.  The  language  is  general,  and 
not  limited ;  and  must  be  as  extensive  in  meaning,  as  the  same 
expressions  used  in  other  passages  ;  as  for  example  in  Luke  vii. 
47,  48  ;  Matt.  ix.  2. 

From  this  plain  and  explicit  passage,  it  is  clear  that  our 
Lord  conferred  upon  the  apostles  the  power  to  forgive  or  remit 
sins.  But  ther^was  also  another  power  bestowed,  the  power  to 
retain  sins.  And  not  only  were  these  powers  bestowed  upon 
the  apostles,  but  our  Lord  expressly  pledged  Himself  that  the 
exercise  of  these  powers  should  be  ratified  by  Him,  in  the  same 
way  that  He  pledged  Himself  to  ratify  in  heaven,  what  they 
should  do  under  the  power  to  bind  and  loose.  (Matt,  xviii.  18.) 

In  bestowing  these  important  powers,  did  our  Lord  do  an 
idle  and  useless  thing  ?  What  did  He  intend  by  the  very  act 
of  conferring  these  powers  ?  Surely  nothing  else  but  that  they 
should  be  put  into  practical  operation.  They  could  not  have 
been  given  without  intending  to  accomplish  some  great  end. 
The  very  act  of  conferring  these  powers  was,  in  itself,  a  com- 
mand to  use  them  for  the  purposes  intended.  When  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States  confers  certain  powers  upon  the 
different  departments  of  government,  it  was  intended  that  these 
powers  should  be  put  into  practical  operation ;  and  the  officer 
who  fails  to  do  so,  is  guilty  of  a  dereliction  of  duty. 

If,  then,  these  powers  were  given  for  practical  application,  it 
follows  invincibly,  that  the  right  to  use  all  the  means  necessary 
to  carry  them  into  full  and  complete  operation,  was  also  given, 
as  inseparable  incidents  of  the  powers  themselves.  To  give  the 
powers,  and,  at  the  same  time,  to  deny  the  use  of  all  the  means 
necessary  to  carry  them  into  execution,  would  have  been  en- 
tirely idle ;  because  if  would  have  defeated  the  very  purpose 
had  in  view,  when  giving  the  powers  themselves.  It  is  a  plain 
and  fixed  principle  of  the  civil  law,  as  well  as  of  the  law  of  com 
mon  sense  and  of  pure  justice,  to  confer  the  use  of  the  necessary 
means  with  the  power  itself.  To  give  the  power,  and  withhold 
the  means,  would  be  about  as  sensible  and  efficient,  as  the  ex- 
hortation, u  be  ye  clothed  and  fed."  The  incident  must  alwaya 
follow  the  principal.  Thus  Chancellor  Kent,  speaking  of  a 
decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  says: 


616  THE    SACKAMENT   OF   PENANCE. 

"  The  powers  given  to  the  government  imply  the  ordinary 
means  of  execution  ;  and  the  government  in  all  sound  reason  and 
fair  interpretation,  must  have  the  choice  of  the  means  which  it 
deems  the  most  convenient  and  appropriate  to  the  execution  of 
the  power."  (1  Kent,  252.) 

It  would  seem  impossible  for  any  fair  and  logical  mind,  after 
due  consideration,  to  deny  the  truth  of  either  of  these  two 
propositions:  1.  That  the  power  to  forgive  an,d  the  power  to 
retain  sins,  were  conferred  upon  the  apostles ;  2.  That  with  the 
mam  powers,  were  also  given  all  the  necessary  incidents,  to 
enable  the  apostles  to  carry  the  powers  into  practical  effect. 

These  two  positions  being  true,  it  follows  that  remission  of 
sins  committed  after  baptism,  could  only  be  had  through  the 
exercise  of  this  power  by  the  apostles.  For  it  will  be  observed, 
that  they  had  not  only  the  power  to  remit,  but  also  to  retain 
sins.  Both  powers  were  given  at  the  same  time ;  and  both 
were  equally  intended  for  practical  application  to  individual 
cases.  If  the  transgressor  could  obtain  remission,  without  the 
consent  of  the  apostles,  then  their  power  to  retain  sins  would 
have  been  idle,  because  inefficient.  Christ  meant  something 
effectual  in  giving  the  power  to  retain  sins ;  and,  therefore,  He 
could  not  have  intended  to  confer  a  contradictory  power  upon 
others.  He  would  not  give  this  power  to  the  apostles,  and  re- 
quire them  to  exercise  it,  and  promise  Himself  to  ratify  their 
acts,  and  at  the  same  time  give  the  party  offending,  the  power 
to  escape  the  exercise  of  this  function.  He  said  explicitly, 
"Whose  soever  sins  ye  retain  they  are  retained;  "  and  He  could 
not,  therefore,  violate  this  promise.  If  the  party  offending 
could  obtain  remission  of  sins,  without  applying  to  the  apostles, 
who  had  the  power  to  retain,  as  well  as  to  remit ;  then,  as  a 
matter  of  course,  he  would  not  apply  to  them,  for  fear  they 
would  retain  his  sins.  In  practical  effect,  the  exercise  of  these 
two  most  important  powers  would  have  been  defeated,  unless 
we  concede  that,  when  given,  they  were  intended  as  exclusive 
and  supreme. 

The  apostles,  then,  had  the  exclusive  power  to  forgive  and 
rotnin  sins.  What  is  sin  ?  It  is  a  violation  of  the  law  of 
Christ.  One  violation  of  this  law  constitutes  one  sin,  and  two 
or  more  violations  constitute  sins.  Each  transgression  consti- 


THE  SACRAMENT  OP  PENANCE. 

tutes  a  separate  and  distinct  offence.  It  is  so  in  all  laws  defin- 
ing crimes.  If  a  man  steal  two  different  pieces  of  property,  at 
different  times,  he  commits  two  separate  and  distinct  offences. 

The  power  to  remit  and  the  power  to  retain  sins,  were  the 
powers  to  remit  or  retain  each  particular  transgression  of  the 
law.  How,  then,  could  the  apostles  remit  or  retain  sins  unless 
they  knew  what  they  were  ?  It  was  not  intended  that  these 
great  powers  should  be  exercised  blindly.  It  could  not  have 
been  intended  that  they  should  have  the  powers  to  remit  and 
retain  sin  in  one  undistinguished  mass ;  because  the  authority 
was  to  remit  and  retain  sins,  not  sin.  If  they  could  remit  and 
retain  sin,  not  sins,  without  distinguishing  between  different  vi- 
olations of  the  law,  then  the  whole  end  and  purpose  of  these 
powers  would  have  been  substantially  defeated.  Such  a  view 
would  confound  all  distinctions  between  different  sins,  and  dif- 
ferent individuals ;  and  would,  by  this  confusion  of  all  just  dis- 
tinctions, render  the  exercise  of  these  powers  useless.  How 
could  the  apostles  tell  what  sins  to  remit  or  retain,  unless  they 
first  knew  what  they  were  ? 

That  each  separate  and  distinct  offence  was  intended,  is 
shown  by  the  command  of  St.  James  :  "  Confess  your  faults  (in 
the  Douay  Bible,  sins)  one  to  another."  (James  v.  16.) 

Now  here  the  term  sins  (in  the  plural)  must  mean  different 
transgressions.  This  is  not  only  clear  from  the  word  itself,  but 
from  the  purpose  of  the  provision.  This  confession  of  sins  was 
unquestionably  a  great  duty  ;  otherwise  it  would  not  have  been 
imposed.  It  was  not  put  upon  us  for  a  mere  idle  purpose.  It 
must  have  been  intended  to  accomplish  something  important. 
But  if  each  individual  was  only  required  to  confess  the  general 
fact  that  he  had  sinned,  (and  not  his  sins,  as  the  apostle  com- 
manded,) the  whole  purpose  of  this  command  would  be  defeat- 
ed ;  for  the  plain  reason,  that  it  places  all  upon  the  same  foot- 
ing^ — the  flagrant  offender  with  the  most  circumspect.  For  a 
man  simply  to  say  that  he  is  a  sinner,  is  simply  to  confess  that 
he  is  as  bad  as  the  apostles,  for  they  sinned  also.  It  would  be 
not  the  slightest  humiliation  to  confess  that  which  att  must  con- 
fess. Such  a  confession  is  no  check  upon  transgression,  as  all 
must  equally  confess  the  same  thing,  and  no  more,  whether  they 
sin  much  or  little.  What  possible  reason  could  there  be  in  re- 


618  THE  SACRAMENT  OF  PENANCE. 

quiring  only  such  a  confession  as  that  ?  What  good  could  it 
accomplish  ?  What  humility  could  it  require  ?  Each  and  every 
one  would  have  plenty  of  company.  Such  could  not  have  been 
the  intention  of  Christ,  or  of  the  apostle. 

The  right  to  acquire  this  knowledge  of  the  particular  sins 
of  each  individual,  must  have  been  given  with  the  delegation 
of  the  powers  to  remit  and  retain  sins,  because  essentially  neces- 
sary to  give  force  and  effect  to  the  powers  themselves.  How, 
then,  did  the  apostles  attain  this  knowledge  of  the  sins  of  indi- 
viduals ?  Did  they  possess  the  power  to  see  into  the  hearts  of 
all  men,  so  as  to  know  their  secret  thoughts  ?  If  so,  what  proof 
is  there  of  this  fact  ?  On  the  contrary,  is  it  not  clear  that  St. 
Paul  did  not  know  of  the  divisions  among  the  Corinthians  until 
informed  by  them  of  the  house  of  Chloe  ?  So,  a  special  vision 
was  required  to  inform  him  that  he  could  remain  safely  in  a 
certain  city.  Arid  is  it  not  true,  that  many  who  "  believed  came 
and  confessed,  and  showed  their  deeds  "  ?  (Acts  xix.  18.) 

The  only  way  in  which  the  apostles  could  know  the  secret 
sins  or  deeds  of  individuals,  was  by  their  confession.  As  the 
apostles  had  the  right  to  remit  or  retain,  they  had  the  right  to 
know  the  sins  committed ;  and  as  the  power,  unless  exclusive, 
would  have  been  idle,  it  was  the  duty  of  all  to  apply  to  them. 
The  facts  being  peculiarly  within  the  knowledge  of  the  party 
committing  the  sins,  it  was  his  duty  to  state  them.  The  power 
given  to  the  apostles  to  do  certain  things,  imposed  upon  the 
parties  governed,  the  corresponding  duty  to  obey  the  apostles 
in  respect  to  those  things.  As  all  sins  are  but  transgressions  of 
the  law,  the  Church  has  the  right  to  know  them  for  two  rea- 
sons: 1.  Because  her  jurisdiction  extends  to  all  violations  of  the 
law  she  was  left  to  execute  ;  and  her  entire  success  and  purity 
require  this  knowledge  ;  2.  Because  it  is  necessary  for  the  safe- 
ty of  each  individual  member. 

§  3.  Did  these  powers  descend  to  the  successors  of  the  Apostles  ? 

I  have  endeavored  to  show,  in  another  place,  that  Christ  did 
create  a  permanent  system  ;  and  for  that  reason,  the  provisions 
of  His  code  were  generally  permanent.  In  other  words,  the 
permanent  provisions  of  any  permanent  code  must  constitute  the 
general  rule,  while  the  temporary  provisions  would  constitute 


.   THE  SACRAMENT  OF  PENANCE.  (Jl  9 

the  exceptions.  All  the  provisions  of  such  a  code  are,  therefore, 
prima  facie  permanent ;  and  the  exceptions  must  be  so  marked, 
either  by  express  words  or  by  the  nature  of  the  power  conferred 
or  command  given,  as  to  show  that  they  are  temporary  only. 
He  who  alleges  exceptions  to  a  general  rule,  or  to  &  prima  facie 
case,  must  show  them.  This  rule  results  from  the  plainest  prin- 
ciples of  right  reason.  When  we  look  into  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,  (which  organized  a  permanent  system  of  gov- 
ernment in  the  contemplation  of  the  theory  itself,)  we  find  that 
there  is  not,  a  single  permanent  provision  expressly  marked,  as 
such,  while  the  temporary  provisions  are  so  marked.  Where 
permanent  powers  are  conferred,  they  are  given  without  any 
limitation,  as  to  time, — as  the  power  to  collect  taxes,  borrow 
and  coin  money,  regulate  commerce,  declare  war,  &c.  But  the 
temporary  provisions  are  expressly  marked,  so  as  to  be  readily 
distinguished  from  the  permanent  features  of  this  instrument ; 
as,  for  example,  in  clause  3,  section  1,  and  in  clause  1,  section  9, 
and  in  clause  2,  section  3,  of  article  1,  and  in  article  5.  It  is 
much  easier  to  expressly  mark  each  of  the  few  exceptions  than 
to  expressly  mark  each  of  the  numerous  cases  coming  under 
the  general  rule. 

It  would  seem  clear  that  this  rule  is  equally  as  applicable  to 
the  system  of  Christ  as  to  that  of  any  other  lawgiver.  That  He 
did  organize  a  permanent  system,  is  certain ;  and  that  the  great 
and  overwhelming  mass  of  the  provisions  of  His  code  are  per- 
manent and  component  parts  of  this  system  of  law,  is  equally 
certain. 

But  we  are  not  left  without  express  authority  to  sustain  this 
view. 

These  positions  would  seem  to  be  true  :  1.  That  the  act  of 
conferring  these  powers  upon  the  apostles  was  a  command  to 
exercise  them  in  proper  cases ;  2.  That  the  powers  are  such,  in 
their  very  nature,  as  may  come  down,  through  the  Church,  to 
the  end  of  time. 

Now,  in  the  commission,  the  apostles  were  expressly  com- 
manded to  teach  all  nations  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever 
they — the  apostles — had  been  commanded  to  observe.  As  I 
have  elsewhere  endeavored  to  show,  this  wide  commission,  by 
its  very  express  terms,  carried  forward  to  the  successors  of  the 


620  THE  SACRAMENT  OF  PENANCE. 

apostles,  in  their  proper  capacities,  all  the  powers,  promises,  and 
duties  incumbent  on,  or  given  to,  the  apostles  themselves,  except 
those  marked  as  temporary,  either  in  express  words,  or  by  the 
peculiar  nature  of  the  act  to  be  performed.*  The  apostles  hav- 
ing been  commanded  to  exercise  these  powers,  and  they,  being 
permanent  in  their  nature,  and  nowhere  marked  as  temporary, 
must  still  reside  in  the  Church,  the  permanent  institution  cre- 
ated by  Christ  Himself.  Those  who  once  concede  that  these 
powers  were  originally  conferred  upon  the  apostles,  will  find  it 
very  difficult  to  escape  this  conclusion ;  for  if  they  can  defeat 
the  present  existence  of  these  powers  in  this  case,  they  can, 
upon  the  same  basis  of  reasoning,  defeat  all  the  powers  of  the 
Church,  and  the  entire  system  itself.f 

But  let  us  inquire  into  the  purposes  for  which  these  powers 
were  originally  delegated.  They  were  certainly  bestowed  by 

*  That  the  apostles  exercised  powers  of  government  over  the  Church  in  their 
day,  cannot  be  denied.  That  this  exercise  of  power  was  supreme  over  the  indi- 
vidual members  of  the  Church,  must  be  true.  That  a  portion  of  these  powers 
came  down  to  their  successors,  must  be  admitted.  How,  then,  shall  we  distin- 
guish between  those  duties  which  were  personal  to  the  apostles  and  those  not  so  ? 
In  other  words,  how  shall  we  distinguish  between  the  permanent  and  temporary 
provisions  of  the  code  ?  We  must  make  the  distinction.  I  cannot  conceive  of 
any  other  possible  and  efficient  rule  than  the  one  I  have  given. 

f  Bishop  Porteus  seems  to  have  been  aware  of  the  decisive  strength  of  this 
position ;  and,  therefore,  insisted  that  the  words  of  Christ  did  not  confer  upon 
the  apostles  any  real  power  to  forgive  sins,  but  only  "a  power  of  declaring  who 
were  truly  penitent,  and  of  inflicting  miraculous  punishments  on  sinners,  as  like- 
wise the  preaching  the  word  of  God,"  &c.  (Cited  End  of  Con.,  Part  iii.,  p.  83.) 

But  how  such  a  misconstruction  of  so  plain  a  passage  could  have  been  tole- 
rated by  any  learned  man,  is  surprising.  The  text  is  exceedingly  explicit,  and 
the  two  main  words,  remit  and  sins,  upon  which  the  sense  depends,  are  remark- 
ably definite  and  certain  in  their  meaning.  It  so  happens  that  these  terms  can 
mean  nothing  else  in  that  connection  but  the  view  I  have  taken.  Lawgivers 
are  not  wont  to  indulge  in  the  use  of  mere  surplus  words.  Their  aim  is  to  b« 
concise  and  certain.  Now  could  Bishop  Porteus,  or  any  other  man,  select  words 
more  concise  and  certain  than  those  used  by  our  Lord,  conceding  that  He  intend- 
ed to  confer  the  real  power  to  forgive  and  retain  sins  ?  What  form  of  words 
could  be  used  in  such  a  case  more  clear,  without  useless  verbiage  ?  I  cannot 
conceive  of  terms  more  clear  and  concise.  And  if  this  be  true  that  Christ  did 
use  the  most  concise  and  certain  terms  possible,  to  confer  a  real  power,  then 
what  right  have  we  to  say  He  still  did  not  intend  to  make  such  a  delegation  of 
power  ?  It  was  our  Lord's  practice  to  use  concise  and  certain  terms. 


THE  SACRAMENT  OF  PENANCE.  621 

our  Lord  for  great  and  beneficial  ends.  It  was  not  an  idle 
display  of  words  only.  Far  from  it.  What,  then,  could  these 
purposes  be  ?  It  could  not  have  been  a  mere  personal  privilege 
given  to  the  apostles  alone.  We  cannot  conceive  of  any  practi- 
cal ends  to  be  accomplished  by  it,  as  such.  Miracles  were  spe- 
cial gifts.  This  gift  of  miracles  was  given  to  the  apostles 
individually,  as  proofs  of  their  veracity  as  witnesses  of  the  facts 
they  saw,  and  of  the  discourses  they  heard.  The  words  of 
Christ  was  the  evidence  of  their  commission  as  officers  of  the 
Church,  in  the  same  way  that  these  same  words  will  constitute 
the  evidence  of  the  authority  of  their  successors  to  the  end  of 
time. 

But  the  power  to  remit,  and  the  power  to  retain  sins,  were 
not  required  as  proofs  of  the  veracity  of  the  apostles  as  wit- 
nesses, or  of  their  being  agents  of  Christ.  For  what  purposes 
were  these  powers  given  ?  They  were  given  for  the  safety  of 
the  Church,  and  of  each  individual  member,  as  already  stated  in 
substance.  What  other  purpose  could  our  Lord  have  intended 
to  accomplish  ?  The  exercise  of  these  powers  could  constitute 
no  proofs  of  the  truth  of  Christianity  /  for  the  truth  of  the 
system  had  first  to  be  conceded,  before  the  exercise  of  these 
powers  would  be  invoked  by  the  individual.  If  he  did  not  first 
believe  in  the  existence  of  these  powers,  he  could  not  ask  for 
their  exercise. 

The  very  same  reasons  that  induced  our  Lord  to  confer 
those  powers  upon  the  apostles  at  the  beginning,  would  have  in- 
duced Him  to  continue  them  in  the  Church  to  the  end  of  time. 
That  the  actual  and  practical  exercise  of  these  powers  was 
merciful  and  beneficial  to  the  members  of  the  Church,  in  the 
days  of  the  apostles,  must  be  conceded ;  for  after  all  the  sug- 
gestions of  pride,  and  the  cavils  of  prejudice,  every  humble 
Christian  must  concede,  at  last,  that  such  an  institution  is  bene- 
ficial. It  may,  then,  be  well  asked,  are  we  living  under  a  muti- 
lated and  crippled  code  of  law,  which  has  lost  some  of  its  most 
beautiful  and  consolotary  features  ?  If  the  powers  to  forgive 
and  retain  sins,  and  the  corresponding  duty  of  confession,  were 
confined  to  the  apostolic  day,  how  do  we  enjoy  any  benefits 
from  the  same  ?  What  good  does  it  do  us  to  know  that  the 
apostles  did  forgive  sins — that  the  happy  and  favored  Christians 


622  THE    SACKAMENT   OF   PENANCE 

of  that  day  did  enjoy  the  blessed  consolation  of  this  certain  and 
not  mere  inferrential  forgiveness  ?  Could  that  have  been  the 
intention  of  Christ  ?  Did  He  design  His  system  to  be  perfect 
at  the  beginning,  and  imperfect  afterwards  ?  Did  He  intend  to 
make  this  great  difference  among  Christians  ?  If  so,  why  ?  Is 
there  any  reason  for  it — any  Scripture  ?  We  are  all  living  un- 
der the  same  dispensation.  What  was  necessary  then,  is  neces- 
sary now.  As  witnesses  the  apostles  left  their  testimony  with 
the  Church,  and  we  enjoy  the  benefit  of  it  at  this  day,  as  much 
as  our  brethren  did  in  their  day.  But  if  these  great  and  im- 
portant powers  to  remit  and  retain  sins,  be  taken  away,  we  are, 
indeed,  left  in  a  state  of  destitution.  This  cannot  be  true. 
Either  Christ  never  gave  these  powers,  or  they  yet  remain  in 
the  Church,  and  will  continue  there,  with  the  other  permanent 
powers,  to  the  end  of  time. 

But  there  are  the  best  reasons  for  the  practice  of  confession. 
Is  not  man  a  frail  creature,  that  needs  discipline  and  aid  at  every 
step  of  his  perilous  journey  through  life  ?  And  yet  can  any 
thing  defiled  enter  heaven  ?  The  struggle  for  a  seat  in  that 
happy  abode,  is  a  great  struggle.  The  rewards  are  unspeakable 
in  degree,  and  endless  in  duration.  They  are  worth  a  life  of 
humility  and  labor.  And  for  these  reasons  man  needs  a  test  of 
his  faith  and  practice  at  all  times.  His  memory  needs  to  be 
refreshed.  He  needs  these  tests  while  he  has  time  to  amend, 
if  wrong.  After  death,  it  is  too  late.  As  the  doctrine  of  the 
Real  Presence  is  a  great  test  of  faith  in  the  truth  of  Christianity, 
so  confession  is  a  great  test  of  virtuous  practice.  The  proud 
cannot  submit  to  it.  Christ  knew  this,  and  He  never  intended 
to  reward  the  proud.  He  pronounced  a  sweet  blessing  upon 
the  poor  in  spirit ;  but  he  had  no  blessing  for  the  proud.  Con- 
fession strikes  a  fatal  blow  at  pride.  It  humbles  and  corrects 
self-conceit.  It  is  a  great  check  upon  self-delusion. 

There  are  some  things  that  we  can  know  with  certainty ; 
and  among  them  is  the  fact,  that  we  did  do  a  certain  thing,  and 
the  motive  with  which  we  did  it.  These  are  facts  within  our 
own  knowledge,  and  are  of  so  plain  a  character,  that  we  cannot 
be  mistaken.  There  is  no  room  for  delusion.  But  when  we 
come  to  make  up  our  judgment  as  to  the  character  of  the  act 
itself,  then  our  self-love  and  our  interest  will  be  most  apt  to  mis- 


THE  SACRAMENT  OF  PENANCE. 

lead  us.  If  we  confess  to  God  alone,  we  have  no  one  to  instruct 
us  as  to  the  character  of  the  particular  act,  or  to  cross-examine 
us  as  to  the  circumstances  attending  the  act  itself.  The  whole 
work  we  do  ourselves,  and  we  do  not  know  whether  we  are 
certainly  forgiven  or  not.  We  historically  relate  the  fact  to 
God,  while  we  also  construe  the  law  as  applicable  to  the  act 
itself. 

But  in  confession  it  is  different  in  some  material  respects. 
The  penitent  not  only  gives  a  statement  of  all  the  acts  he  has 
committed,  that  he  himself  esteems  sinful,  but  he  is  subjected  to 
cross-examination,  that  powerful  test  of  truth.  Did  the  most 
h  onest  witness  ever  state  all  the  material  facts  he  knew,  without 
cross-examination  ?  Such  instances  are  exceedingly  rare  ;  not 
because  the  witness  does  not  desire  to  tell  the  truth,  the  whole 
truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth ;  but  because  he  cannot  cor- 
rectly judge  as  to  all  that  is  material.  He  will  almost  cer- 
tainly omit  some  circumstance  of  importance.  But  when  we 
are  not  only  required  to  confess  to  God,  but  to  man  also,  we 
have  two  checks  instead  of  one.  Besides  this,  there  arc  many 
persons  of  the  most  pious  dispositions,  that  are  often  afflicted 
with  groundless  scruples ;  and  these  find  a  complete  relief  and 
correction  in  confession.  As  every  one  has  the  right  to  select 
his  own  confessor,  he  can  have  recourse  to  that  one  in  whose 
discretion  and  judgment  he  has  the  greatest  confidence. 

That  God  should  select  human  agents  to  administer  His  law 
among  men,  is  entirely  consistent  with  the  nature  and  purposes 
of  His  government.  It  was  evidently  the  intent  of  our  Lord  to 
honor  human  nature.  He  died  for  it.  He  deemed  it  worthy 
to  be  trusted.  His  system,  upon  its  face,  shows  the  intimate 
union  and  mutual  dependence  that  Christians  should  sustain  to 
each  other.  His  system  is  not  based  on  universal  suspicion. 

The  objection,  based  upon  considerations  of  delicacy,  is  one 
that  is  without  any  real  foundation  in  reason  or  Scripture.  We 
are  assured  that  one  day  our  sins  will  be  revealed  to  an  assem- 
bled universe.  It  is  only  a  small  question  of  time,  to  say  the 
least  of  it.  The  jurisdiction  of  the  Church  extends  to  all  viola- 
tions of  the  law,  or  to  none.  If  Christ,  by  His  law,  prohibits 
sins  of  every  character,  why  should  the  Church  pass  any  of  them 
over  in  silence  ?  Can  a  man  escape  responsibility,  simply  be- 


624:  THE  SACRAMENT  OF  PENANCE. 

cause  he  takes  care  only  to  commit  indelicate  sins  ?  The  crimi 
nal  law  of  the  land  defines  and  punishes  a  great  variety  of  of. 
fences,  some  of  them  of  a  very  indelicate  character  ;  and  yet  our 
courts  of  law  are  compelled  to  execute  justice  upon  offenders 
openly  by  a  public  trial.  No  code  of  law  could  pass  over  these 
indelicate  offences  without  an  abdication  of  justice,  and  the  con- 
sequent increase  of  these  very  crimes. 

The  rights  of  the  Church,  and  the  salvation  of  her  children, 
cannot  be  sacrificed  to  motives  of  mere  delicacy.  In  the  pure 
and  impartial  eye  of  God,  sins  are  obnoxious  in  proportion  to 
their  turpitude.  In  a  true  legal,  moral,  and  philosophical  view, 
the  question  of  delicacy,  does  not  affect  that  of  jurisdiction, 
but  only  the  mode  of  investigation.  The  two  are  entirely  dis- 
tinct. And  it  was  to  avoid  the  scandals  of  public  confession, 
that  secret  sins  are  confessed  as  secret,  and  kept  sacred  by  the 
proper  officer.  In  this  way,  the  Church  and  the  individual 
members  receive  the  benefits  flowing  from  the  sacrament,  while 
the  injuries  that  might  result  from  a  public  confession  are 
avoided.  And  one  of  the  most  powerful  arguments  in  favor  of 
confession  is  the  fact,  that  a  priest  was  never  known  wrong- 
fully to  reveal  any  thing  confided  to  him  in  the  tribunal  of  pen- 
ance. It  does  not  matter  whether  he  has  subsequently  become 
an  Athiest,  or  even  a  criminal,  his  lips  are  sealed  in  eternal 
silence. 

If  the  Church  has  any  jurisdiction  over  offences  at  all,  she 
has  the  right  to  know  of  every  violation  of  the  law.  She  may 
be  defrauded  of  this  right  by  the  hypocrite  to  his  own  ruin,  but 
still  she  has  that  right,  though  it  may  be  evaded.  It  is  difficult 
to  understand  that  sort  of  morality  that  would  hypocritically 
conceal  a  violation  of  the  law  the  Church  was  charged  to 
execute,  and  yet  the  party  enjoy  all  her  privileges  and  pro. 
tection,  and  still  hope  to  get  to  heaven  through  her  communion. 
If  he  is  for  the  Church  he  ought  to  be  for  her ;  if  not,  let  him  be 
for  the  world.  Let  him  be  squarely  and  decidedly  for  one  or 
the  other. 

It  is  about  as  difficult  to  conceive  a  logical  idea  of  a  religious 
system,  requiring  both  faith  and  holiness,  and  promising  forgive- 
ness of  sins  committed  after  baptism,  without  confession,  as  it  is 
of  a  system  of  law  without  free  agency  in  the  party  governed, 


THE  SACRAMENT  OF  PENANCE.  625 

and  without  any  tribunal  to  construe  the  law  in  the  last  resort, 
If  the  powers  to  remit  and  retain  sins,  and  the  necessarily  cor- 
responding duty  to  confess  them,  do  not  reside  in  the  Church, 
the  system  is  defective,  to  the  best  of  my  judgment.  It  is  sim- 
ply a  question  of  government,  or  no  government  in  the  Church  ; 
and  this  again  is  a  question  simply  of  Church  or  no  Church. 
And  the  whole  controversy,  as  I  conceive,  between  Catholics 
and  Protestants  is  ultimately  resolvable  into  one  single  question, 
Was  Christ  a  lawgiver  or  not  f  If  he  was,  the  Catholic  is 
right.  If  not,  then  the  Protestant  is  nearer  right.  This  is  the 
only  point  really  at  issue.  It  must  come  to  that,  sooner  or 
later.  It  is  the  only  point  that  need  be  determined.  All  else 
follows  invincibly. 

§  4.    Views  of  some  Protestant  sects,  and  testimony  of  the 
Fathers. 

In  the  confession  of  Augsburg,  and  the  Apology,  it  is  held 
that  "  particular  absolution  ought  to  be  retained  in  confession :, 
that  to  reject  it  is  an  error  of  the  Novatians,  and  a  condemned 
error ;  that  this  absolution  is  a  true  sacrament,  and  properly  so 
called ;  that  the  power  of  the  keys  remits  sins,  not  only  in  the 
sight  of  the  Church,  but  also  in  the  sight  of  God."  In  the  little 
Catechism  of  Luther  are  these  words  :  "  In  the  sight  of  God  we 
must  hold  ourselves  guilty  of  our  hidden  sins  ;  but  with  respect 
to  the  Minister,  we  must  confess  those  only  which  are  known  to 
us,  and  which  we  feel  within  our  hearts."  The  absolution  given 
by  the  confessor  is  in  this  form  :  "  Do  you  not  believe  that  my 
forgiveness  is  that  of  God  ?  "  "  Yes,"  answers  the  penitent. 
"  And  I,"  replies  the  confessor,  "  by  the  orders  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  forgive  you  your  sins,  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  (Cited  Bossuet's  Vari., 
Book  in.,  sec.  46,  47.) 

In  the  Common  Prayer  Book  of  the  Church  of  England,  it  is 
ordained  that  when  any  minister  visits  any  sick  person,  the  "  lat- 
ter should  be  moved  to  make  especial  confession  of  his  sins,  if 
he  feels  his  conscience  troubled  with  any  weighty  matter  ;  after 
which  confession  the  Priest  shall  absolve  him,  if  he  humbly  and 
heartily  desire  it,  after  this  sort :  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who 
hath  left  power  to  his  Church  to  absolve  all  sinners  who  truly 
54 


626  THE  SACRAMENT  OF  PENANCE. 

repent  and  believe  in  him,  of  his  great  mercy,  forgive  thee  thine 
offences ;  and  by  his  authority  committed  to  me,  I  absolve  thee 
from  all  thy  sins,  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  Amen."  (Order  for  the  Visitation  of  the 
Sick.) 

It  will  be  observed  that  this  duty  is  only  imposed  upon  the 
minister  in  cases  of  sickness.  But  it  would  seem  to  be  exceed- 
ingly difficult  to  understand  the  reason  why  a  sick  person  needs 
forgiveness,  while  a  person  in  health  does  not,  and  why  our  Lord 
could  be  held  to  have  left  power  to  absolve  in  the  one  case  and 
not  in  the  other.  The  person  in  health  may  die  suddenly.  It 
is  an  effort,  on  the  part  of  the  Church  of  England,  to  retain  the 
power  in  form,  but  to  dispense  with  its  exercise,  except  in  par- 
ticular cases.  Did  Christ  ever  make  such  exceptions  ?  Did 
He,  in  bestowing  the  power  upon  the  apostles,  limit  it  to  cases 
of  sickness  ?  It  must  be  conceded  that  this  practice  of  the 
Church  of  England  wears  the  appearance  of  a  mere  practical 
evasion  of  the  injunction  of  Christ.  To  concede  that  our  Lord, 
in  general  terms,  did  leave  the  power  to  absolve  from  sins  with 
His  Church,  and  then  to  arbitrarily  restrict  it  to  sick  persons, 
would  seem  to  be  a  perversion  of  the  very  purpose  intended  by 
conferring  the  power  itself.  Thus  to  mutilate  and  cripple,  limit 
and  restrict,  a  power  of  such  a  general  character,  would  seem 
to  be  an  arbitrary  act,  unjustifiable  by  reason  or  Scripture. 

In  the  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Church,  edition  of  1835, 
New  York,  may  be  found  regulations  of  Band  Societies,  p.  83,  84. 
The  questions  that  must  be  put  at  every  meeting  are  these : 
"  1.  What  known  sins  have  you  committed  since  our  last  meeting? 
2.  What  particular  temptations  have  you  met  with  ?  3.  How 
were  you  delivered  ?  4.  What  have  you  thought,  said,  or  done, 
of  which  you  doubt  whether  it  be  sin  or  not  ?  " 

In  reference  to  the  testimony  of  the  Fathers,  I  find  the  most 
important  passages  collected  by  Dr.  Wiseman  in  the  tenth  of 
his  Moorfield  lectures.  I  avail  myself  of  his  labors,  and  take 
the  following  from  the  passages  he  quoted : 

St.  Irenseus  mentions  some  women  who  accused  themselves 
of  secret  crimes.  Of  others  he  says :  "  Some,  touched  in  con- 
science, publicly  confessed  their  sins ;  while  others,  in  despair, 
renounced  their  faith." 


THE  SACRAMENT  OF  PENANCE.  627 

"  Look,"  says  Dr.  Wiseman,  u  at  this  alternative  ;  some  con- 
fessed and  others  renounced  the  faith.  If  there  had  been  any 
other  means  of  forgiveness,  why  should  they  have  abandoned 
their  faith." 

Tertullian  says,  among  other  things :  "  Of  this  penitential  dis- 
position the  proof  is  more  laborious,  as  the  business  is  more 
pressing,  in  order  that  some  public  act,  not  the  voice  of  con- 
science alone,  may  show  it."  Again  :  "  If  you  still  draw  back, 
let  your  mind  turn  to  that  eternal  fire,  which  confession  will  ex- 
tinguish ;  and  that  you  may  not  hesitate  to  adopt  the  remedy, 
weigh  the  greatness  of  future  punishment.  And  as  you  are  not 
ignorant  that,  against  that  fire,  after  the  baptismal  institution, 
the  aid  of  confession  has  been  appointed,  why  are  you  an  enemy 
to  your  own  salvation  ?  "  The  aid  of  confession  has  been  ap- 
pointed after  the  baptismal  institution  ;  that  is,  for  sins  commit- 
ted after  baptism. 

St.  Cyprian,  speaking  of  those  who  had  thoughts  of  sacrific- 
ing to  idols,  or  of  surrendering  the  Scriptures,  says  :  "  This  they 
confess,  with  grief  and  without  disguise,  before  the  Priests  of 
God,  unburdening  the  conscience,  and  seeking  a  salutary  reme- 
dy, however  small  and  pardonable  their  failing  may  have  been." 
Again :  "  I  entreat  you,  my  brethren,  let  all  confess  their  faults, 
while  he  that  has  offended  enjoys  life ;  while  his  confession  can 
be  received,  and  while  the  satisfaction  and  pardon  imparted  by 
the  priests  are  acceptable  before  God." 

Origen  of  the  Greek  Church  says :  "  There  is  yet  a  more  se- 
vere and  arduous  pardon  of  sins  by  penance,  when  the  sinner 
washes  his  couch  with  tears,  and  when  he  blushes  not  to  dis- 
close his  sin  to  the  priest  of  the  Lord,  and  seek  the  remedy." 
Again :  "  They  who  have  sinned,  if  they  hide  and  retain  their 
sin  within  their  breast  are  greviously  tormented ;  but  if  the  sin- 
ner become  his  own  accuser,  while  he  does  this  he  discharges 
the  cause  of  all  his  malady.  Only  let  him  carefully  consider  to 
whom  he  should  confess  his  sin,  what  is  the  character  of  the 
physician ;  if  he  be  one  who  will  be  weak  with  the  weak,  who 
will  weep  with  the  sorrowful,  and  who  understands  the  disci- 
pline of  condolence  and  fellow-feeling — so  that,  when  his  skill 
shall  be  known  and  his  pity  felt,  you  may  follow  what  he  may 
advise.  Should  he  think  your  disease  to  be  such  that  it  should 


828  T1IE    SACRAMENT   OF   PENANCE. 

be  declared  in  the  assembly  of  the  faithful,  whereby  others  may 
be  edified,  and  yourself  easily  reformed — this  must  be  done 
with  much  deliberation,  and  the  skilful  advice  of  the  physician.'' 

From  this  passage  it  is  seen  that  the  penitent  had  the  right 
to  select  his  confessor — that  he  should  select  a  prudent  and 
skilful  one — that  the  confessor  had  a  right  to  require  a  public 
confession  if  deemed  advisable  for  the  edification  of  others  and 
the  reformation  of  the  penitent — and  that  this  public  confession 
followed  the  private  confession,  and  presupposed  its  existence. 
This  passage  is  a  proof  that  both  private  and  public  confessions 
were  practised  in  the  ancient  Church,  the  latter  depending  upon 
the  judgment  of  the  confessor.  Again,  this  Father  says  :  "  They 
who  are  not  holy  die  in  their  sins ;  the  holy  do  penance ;  they 
feel  their  wounds ;  are  sensible  of  their  failings ;  look  for  the 
priest ;  implore  health ;  and  through  him  seek  to  be  purified." 
"  If  we  discover  our  sins,  not  only  to  God,  but  to  those  who 
may  apply  a  remedy  to  our  wounds  and  iniquities,  our  sins  will  be 
effaced  by  Him  who  said:  I  have  blotted  out  thy  iniquities  as 
a  cloud,  and  thy  sins  as  a  mist."  (Isa.  xliv.  22.) 

This  last  passage  shows  the  duty  of  confessing  to  both  God 
and  His  ministers. 

St.  Basil  says :  "  In  the  confession  of  sins,  the  same  method 
must  be  observed,  as  in  laying  open  the  infirmities  of  the  body. 
For,  as  these  are  not  rashly  communicated  to  every  one,  but  to 
those  only  who  understand  by  what  method  they  may  be  cured, 
so  the  confession  of  sins  must  be  made  to  such  persons  as  have 
the  power  to  apply  a  remedy."  He  tells  us  who  those  persons 
are  who  can  apply  the  remedy :  "  Necessarily  our  sins  must  be 
confessed  to  those  to  whom  has  been  committed  the  dispensa- 
tion of  the  mysteries  of  God."  Again  :  "  That  woman,  guilty 
of  adultery,  and  who  had  confessed  it,  should  not  be  made  pub- 
lic, agreeable  to  what  the  Fathers  had  appointed." 

St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa  :  "  You  whose  soul  is  sick,  why  do  you 
not  run  to  a  physician  ?  Why  do  you  not  confess,  and  discover 
your  malady  to  him  by  confession  9  *****  Impart  your 
trouble  to  the  priest,  as  to  your  Father ;  he  will  be  touched 
with  a  sense  of  your  misery.  Show  to  him  what  is  concealed 
without  blushing ;  open  the  secrets  of  your  soul  as  if  you  were 
showing  to  a  physician  a  hidden  disorder  ;  he  will  take  care  of 


THE  SACRAMENT  OF  PENANCE.  629 

your  honor  and  of  your  cure."  "  Whoever  secretly  steals  an- 
other man's  goods,  if  he  afterwards  discover,  by  confession,  his 
sin  to  the  priest,  his  heart  being  changed,  he  shall  cure  the 
wound :  but  then  he  must  give  to  the  poor,  and  thereby  clearly 
show  that  he  is  free  from  the  sin  of  avarice." 

St.  Ambrose,  speaking  of  those  who  do  not  make  a  full  dis- 
closure of  their  sins,  says :  "  There  are  some  who  ask  for  pen- 
ance that  they  may  at  once  be  restored  to  communion.  These 
do  not  so  much  desire  to  be  loosed,  as  to  bind  the  priest ; 
for  they  do  not  unburden  their  own  consciences,  but  they 
burden  his,  who  is  commanded  not  to  give  holy  things  to  dogs  ; 
that  is,  not  easily  to  admit  impure  souls  to  the  holy  commu- 
nion." 

St.  Pacianus  says :  "  I  address  myself  to  you,  who,  having 
committed  crimes,  refuse  to  do  penance  ;  you,  who  are  ashamed 
to  confess,  after  you  have  sinned,  without  shame.  The  apostle 
says  to  the  priest :  Impose  not  hands  lightly  on  any  one  ;  nei- 
ther be  ye  partakers  of  other  metis  sins.  (1  Tim.  v.  22.)  What 
then  wilt  thou  do  who  deceivest  the  minister  ?  Who  either 
leavest  him  in  ignorance,  or  confoundest  his  judgment  by  half 
communications  ?  " 

St.  Jerome  :  "  In  like  manner  with  us,  the  bishop  or  priest 
binds  and  looses ;  not  those  who  are  merely  innocent  or  guilty, 
but  having  heard,  as  his  duty  requires,  the  various  qualities  of 
sins,  he  understands  who  should  be  bound  and  who  loosed." 
The  priest  must  not  be  content  simply  to  give  absolution  with- 
out inquiring  into  the  particular  sins. 

Pope  Leo  thus  writes  to  the  Bishops  of  Campania : 

"  Having  lately  understood  that  some  of  you,  by  an  unlaw- 
ful usurpation,  have  adopted  a  practice  which  tradition  does  not 
allow,  I  am  determined,  by  all  means,  to  suppress  it.  I  speak 
of  penance,  when  applied  for  by  the  faithful.  There  shah1  be  no 
declaration  of  all  kinds  of  sins,  given  in  writing,  and  publicly 
read ;  for  it  is  enough  that  the  guilt  of  conscience  be  made 
known  to  the  priest  alone,  by  a  private  confession.  That  confi- 
dence, indeed,  may  be  thought  deserving  of  praise,  which,  on 
account  of  the  fear  of  God,  hesitates  not  to  blush  before  men  ; 
there  are  sins,  the  public  disclosure  of  which  must  excite  fear ; 
therefore  let  this  improper  practice  be  put  an  end  to,  lest  many 


630  THE  SACRAMENT  OF  PENANCE. 

be  kept  from  the  remedies  of  penance,  being  ashamed,  as  dread- 
ing to  make  known  to  their  enemies  such  actions  as  may  ex. 
pose  them  to  legal  punishment.  That  confession  suffices  that  is 
first  made  to  God,  and  then  to  the  priest,  who  will  offer  up 
prayers  for  the  sins  of  penitents.  And  there  will  more  be  in- 
duced to  apply  to  this  remedy,  when  the  secrets  of  the  con- 
fessing sinner  shall  not  be  divulged  in  the  hearing  of  the 
people." 

This  sacrament  is  more  often  assailed  by  sarcasm  and  ap- 
peals to  pride,  than  by  earnest  and  respectful  argument.  It  is 
often  spoken  of  by  professed  Christians  in  very  harsh  and  in- 
dignant terms.  Thus  Mr.  Breckenridge  says  the  "  priest  is 
like  a  common  sewer,  the  depository  of  all  the  sins  of  his  peo- 
ple." But  Mr.  B.  would  make  the  ear  of  God  this  "  common 
sewer."  Did  the  learned  controvertist  intend  his  sarcasm  for 
the  ordinance  of  God,  which,  in  the  old  law,  required  confession 
to  the  priest,  and  satisfaction  for  sin  ?  Was  not  the  priest,  in 
that  case,  made  this  "  common  sewer,"  as  Mr.  B.  has  it,  by  God 
Himself?* 


*  The  learned  controvertist  also  objects,  in  very  strong  terms,  upon  the  ground 
of  indelicacy,  to  the  table  of  sins  found  in  Catholic  Prayer  Books,  and  designed 
to  aid  the  penitent  in  his  examination  cf  conscience.  But,  with  all  due  deference, 
it  would  seem  that  this  objection  was  not  only  captious,  but  very  inconsistent,  in 
the  mouth  of  a  Protestant. 

The  language  used  in  these  tables  is  as  delicate  as  could  well  be,  to  be  intel- 
ligible. It  would  seem  to  be  one  of  the  plainest  dictates  of  reason,  as  it  is  cer- 
tainly of  all  law,  that  the  party  governed  should  know  what  the  law  requires, 
and  what  he  may  or  may  not  do  under  the  law  by  which  he  is  governed.  The 
sole  object  in  prescribing  the  law  was  to  secure  the  obedience  of  the  party  gov- 
erned. To  be  able  to  obey,  he  must  know.  And  if  it  was  not  wrong  to  pre- 
scribe the  law  itself,  can  it  be  wrong  to  administer  it  as  given  ?  There  may  be 
a  choice  of  modes  in  which  this  should  be  done ;  but  I  apprehend  that  no  better 
mode  could  be  suggested  than  the  one  pursued  by  the  Catholic  Church. 

Protestants  seem  to  have  taken  up  false  ideas  of  true  delicacy — that  delicacy 
which  is  compatible  with  the  law  of  Christ  They  seem  to  think  that  the  con- 
fessor must  propound  to  all  penitents  all  questions  arising  under  the  law.  This 
js  a  mistake.  The  course  of  examination  is  governed  by  prudence  ;  and  Catho- 
lic priests  are  most  carefully  instructed  as  to  this  duty.  The  penitent  first  makes 
a  statement  of  what  he  accuses  himself  as  sinful.  From  this  statement  the  con- 
fessor can  readily  perceive  the  course  pointed  out  to  him.  He  will  not  inquire 
into  every  possible  offence  in  every  case.  There  must  first  be  some  ground  laid 


THE  SACRAMENT  OF  PENANCE.  631 

§  5.  Satisfaction. 

This  is  the  third  part  of  the  Sacrament  of  Penance.  The 
Catholic  Church  holds  that,  while  the  guilt  and  eternal  punish- 
ment due  to  sin  are  remitted  in  repentance,  confession,  and  ab- 
solution, there  yet  remains  some  duty  to  be  performed  by  tho 
penitent.  In  the  accurate  language  of  Dr.  Wiseman  : 

"  We  believe  that  upon  this  forgiveness  of  sins, — that  is, 
after  the  remission  of  that  eternal  debt  which  God  in  His  jus- 
tice awards  to  transgression  against  His  law, — He  has  been 
pleased  to  reserve  a  certain  degree  of  inferior  or  temporary 
punishment  appropriate  to  the  guilt  which  had  been  incurred ; 
and  it  is  on  this  part  of  the  punishment  alone  that,  according  to 
the  Catholic  doctrine,  satisfaction  can  be  made  to  God."  (Moor- 
field  Lee.,  vol.  2,  35.) 

The  Council  of  Trent  declared  "  that  it  is  wholly  false,  and 
foreign  from  the  word  of  God,  that  the  guilt  of  sin  is  never  re- 
mitted by  God  without  the  whole  punishment  being  also  par- 
doned. For  clear  and  illustrious  examples  are  found  in  the 
sacred  writings,  whereby,  besides  divine  tradition,  this  error  is 
most  manifestly  evinced.  And  truly  the  nature  of  divine  jus- 
tice seems  to  demand  that  they  who,  through  ignorance,  have 
sinned  before  baptism,  should  be  received  into  favor  in  a  differ- 
ent manner  from  those  who,  having  been  once  freed  from  the 
servitude  of  sin  and  of  the  devil,  and  having  received  the  gift 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  have  not  feared,  knowingly,  to  violate  the 
temple  of  God,  and  to  grieve  the  Holy  Spirit.  And  it  befits  the 

by  the  confession  of  the  penitent  himself,  before  the  confessor  will  proceed  to  in- 
quire as  to  the  circumstances  under  which  the  offence  was  committed. 

It  must  be  conceded  by  all  fair  and  just  minds,  that  delicacy  may  be  carried 
to  extremes.  And  it  must  also  be  admitted,  that  people  often  become  really  in- 
delicate by  an  over-sensitiveness  upon  this  subject.  Some  patients,  under  the 
influenos  of  false  delicacy,  would  rather  die  than  reveal  to  their  physician  the 
true  character  of  their  disease. 

But  I  could  not  perceive  how  the  Protestant  proposed  to  avoid  this  objection, 
or  now  he  could  consistently  make  it.  He  insists  that  the  Bible  (by  which  these 
crimes  are  prohibited,  and  in  which  they  are  mentioned  with  no  greater  delicacy 
of  language)  should  be  read  by  sill.  How  he  avoids  the  very  objection  he  makes 
against  the  Catholic  Church,  it  is  most  difficult  to  perceive.  He  insists  upon 
the  reading  of  the  law  defining  these  crimes  in  detail,  and  yet  objects  to  a  state- 
ment of  them  made  for  the  benefit  of  a  private  examination  of  conscience. 


632  THE  SACRAMENT  OF  PENANCE. 

Divine  clemency  that  sins  be  not  pardoned  without  any  satisfac- 
tion, so  that,  taking  occasion  from  thence,  thinking  sin  less 
grievous,  and  offering  an  affront  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  we  should 
fall  into  more  grievous  crimes,  treasuring  up  wrath  against  the 
day  of  wrath.  For  doubtless  these  satisfactory  punishments 
greatly  recoil  from  sin,  and  check  as  it  were  with  a  bridle,  and 
make  penitents  more  vigilant  and  cautious  for  the  future  ;  and 
by  acts  of  the  opposite  virtues,  they  remove  evil  habits  acquired 
by  living  ill." 

In  reference  to  the  true  source  of  the  merit  of  these  peni- 
tential acts,  the  Council  declare  : 

"  But  the  satisfaction  which  we  make  for  our  sins  is  not  so 
ours,  that  it  be  not  through  Jesus  Christ ;  for  we,  who  can  do 
nothing  of  ourselves,  as  of  ourselves,  can  do  all  things,  He  co- 
operating who  strengthens  us.  Thus  man  has  not  wherein  to 
glory ;  but  all  our  glorying  is  in  Christ :  in  whom  we  live ;  in 
whom  we  merit ;  in  whom  we  satisfy  ;  bringing  forth  fruits 
worthy  of  penitence.  Which  fruits  have  efficacy  from  him  ;  by 
him  are  offered  to  the  Father ;  and  through  him  are  accepted 
by  the  Father." 

In  reference  to  the  duty  of  confessors,  it  was  declared,  among 
other  things : 

"  Let  them  ever  keep  before  their  eyes,  that  the  satisfaction 
which  they  impose  be  not  only  for  the  preservation  of  a  new 
life,  and  the  medicine  of  infirmity,  but  also  for  the  avenging  and 
punishment  of  past  sins."  (Sess.  xiv.,  c.  viii.) 

The  above  extracts,  if  attentively  considered,  will  place  be- 
fore the  mind  of  the  reader  a  clear  conception  of  the  Catholic 
faith,  and  the  main  grounds  upon  which  it  rests. 

If  there  be  any  free  agency  in  man  at  all,  so  that  he  can 
obey  or  disobey  the  law  of  Christ  at  his  own  present  election, 
then  it  follows,  necessarily,  that  he  must  voluntarily  co-operate, 
to  some  extent  at  least,  with  the  assisting  grace  of  God,  in  the 
work  of  his  own  salvation.  The  only  question  is  as  to  the 
amount  and  extent  of  this  co-operation.  The  Catholic  theory  re- 
quires more,  the  Protestant  theory  less.  This  is  the  essence  of 
the  difference  between  the  two  theories,  in  reference  to  the  re- 
mission of  sins  committed  after  baptism.  And  if  we  can  do  any 
thing  at  all  in  the  great  work  of  salvation,  when  aided  by  the 


THE  8AORAMENT  OF  PENANCE.  633 

grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  (always  freely  given  to  those 
who  rightly  seek  it,)  there  can  be  nothing  more  natural  and 
reasonable  in  itself  than  that  we  should  suffer  some  temporal 
punishment  for  our  sins,  not  only  as  a  partial  atonement,  but 
also  as  a  useful  correction  of  evil  habits,  and  as  evidence  of  a 
true  repentance. 

When  we  look  into  the  Old  Testament,  and  see  the  uniform 
course  pursued  by  God  towards  His  servants,  when  transgress- 
ing His  law,  we  find  abundant  examples.  When  our  first  par- 
ents had  fallen,  and  were  restored  by  repentance  through  the 
merits  of  the  future  Messiah,  the  Almighty  inflicted  temporary 
punishments  upon  them,  and  all  their  posterity ;  and  although 
the  guilt  of  original  transgression  is  remitted  in  baptism,  we 
must  all  undergo  the  temporal  punishments  inflicted  in  the  be- 
ginning. When  God  had  put  away  the  sin  of  David,  Nathan 
said  to  him :  "  Because  by  this  deed  thou  hast  given  great  occa- 
sion to  the  enemies  of  the  Lord  to  blaspheme,  the  child  that  is 
born  unto  thee  shall  surely  die."  (2  Sam.  xii.  14.)  So,  when 
the  same  king  had  sinned  in  numbering  the  people,  the  Lord 
gave  him,  upon  his  repenting,  choice  of  one  of  three  grievous 
temporal  punishments.  (2  Sam  xxiv.  10-15.)  So  the  Lord 
forgave  the  children  of  Israel  in  answer  to  the  prayer  of  Moses, 
but  at  the  same  time  declared  that  they  should  not  see  the  land 
of  promise.  (Numbers  xiv.)  And  the  same  temporal  punish- 
ment was  inflicted  upon  Moses  and  Aaron  after  they  had  been 
forgiven.  (Numbers  xx.  10,  29  ;  Deut.  xxxiv.  1-6.)  And  holy 
Job,  when  he  had  exceeded  in  speech,  repented  in  dust  and 
ashes.  (Job  xlii.  1-6.)  The  men  of  Nineveh,  when  the  prophet 
had  proclaimed  their  destruction,  observed  a  general  fast  for 
three  days,  saying :  "  Who  can  tell  if  God  will  turn  away  from 
his  fierce  anger,  and  we  perish  not  ?  "  (Jonas  ii.  9.) 

It  is  true  that  this  infliction  of  temporal  punishment  after 
sins  were  forgiven,  occurred  under  the  old  dispensation ;  but  it 
is  equally  true,  that  they  relied  upon  the  same  source  of  pardon 
as  we  ;  namely  :  the  blood  of  Christ.  They  looked  forward,  and 
we  look  backward,  to  the  same  atonement  for  sin,  both  original 
and  actual.  There  were  many  things  in  the  old  law,  and  espe- 
cially those  things  which  naturally  flow  from  our  relation  to 
God,  which  are  contained  in  the  new.  Those  temporary  enact- 
55 


634:  THE   SACRAMENT   OF   PENANCE. 

ments,  which  were  but  the  result  of  positive  legislation,  and 
which  were  adapted  to  the  then  condition  of  things,  are  no 
doubt  laid  aside.  But  the  infliction  of  temporal  punishment  for 
sin,  flows  from  the  permanent  relation  we  bear  to  God  under 
both  systems ;  and  was  not,  therefore,  repealed  by  the  new  law. 
This  temporal  punishment  never  had  been  prescribed  by  any 
positive  law,  but  was  uniformly  inflicted  by  God.  Unless  we 
find  in  the  new  law  some  positive  dispensation  of  this  punish- 
ment, we  must  suppose  it  to  have  been  continued.  It  is  only 
upon  the  ground  that  God  does  inflict  punishment  upon  men  in 
this  world,  that  we  can  believe  in  the  special  interposition  of 
Providence. 

We  not  only  find  no  intimation  in  the  New  Testament  op- 
posed to  the  practice  of  penitential  works,  but  we  find  very 
clear  evidence  that  they  were  continued.  Our  Lord  expressly 
says  that  His  followers  shall  fast.  (Matt.  ix.  15.)  And  we  find 
it  was  the  constant  practice  of  the  apostles  and  others  in  their 
day.  So,  when  our  Lord  reproached  the  then  existing  genera- 
tion, He  referred  to  the  example  of  the  men  of  Nineveh,  not 
only  without  censure,  but  with  evident  approbation.  (Matt, 
xii.  41.) 

But  the  language  of  St.  Paul  is  still  more  explicit : 

"  I  now  rejoice  in  my  sufferings  for  you,  and  fill  up  that 
which  is  behind  of  the  afflictions  of  Christ  in  my  flesh  for  his 
body's  sake,  which  is  the  Church."  In  the  Douay  Bible,  "  those 
things  that  are  wanting  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  in  my  flesh 
for  his  body,  which  is  the  Church."  (Coloss.  i.  24.) 

Upon  this  passage  Dr.  Wiseman  remarks : 

"  What  is  wanting  of  Christ's  sufferings !  And  this  to  be 
supplied  by  man,  and  in  his  flesh  !  What  sort  of  doctrine  call 
we  this  ?  Is  it  in  favor  of  the  completeness  of  Christ's  suffer- 
ings as  to  their  application  ?  Or  rather,  does  it  not  suppose  that 
much  is  to  be  done  by  man,  towards  possessing  himself  of  the 
treasures  laid  up  in  our  Saviour's  redemption  ?  And  that  suf- 
fering is  the  means  whereby  this  application  is  made?  " 

The  distinguished  author  makes  this  clear  summary  of  the 
Catholic  faith : 

"  The  doctrine  which  is  thus  collected  from  the  word  of  God 
is  reducible  to  these  heads  : — 1.  That  God,  after  the  remission 


THE  SACRAMENT  OF  PENANCE.  635 

of  sin,  retains  a  lesser  chastisement  in  His  power,  to  be  inflicted 
on  the  sinner.  2.  That  penitential  works,  fasting,  alms-deeds, 
contrite  weeping,  and  fervent  prayers,  have  the  power  of  avert- 
ing that  punishment.  3.  That  this  scheme  of  God's  justice  was 
not  a  part  of  the  imperfect  law,  but  the  unvarying  ordinance  of 
His  dispensation,  anterior  to  the  Mosaic  ritual,  and  amply  con- 
firmed by  Christ  in  the  gospel.  4.  That  it  consequently  be- 
comes a  part  of  all  true  repentance  to  try  to  satisfy  this  divine 
justice,  by  the  voluntary  assumption  of  such  penitential  works 
as  His  revealed  truth  assures  us  have  efficacy  before  Him." 

The  satisfaction  already  mentioned  may  be  properly  called 
prospective,  because  it  is  intended  to  avert  that  temporal  pun- 
ishment which  has  been  reserved  for  the  sinner.  But  there  is  a 
retrospective  satisfaction  of  the  most  important  character,  with- 
out which  there  can  be  no  remission  of  sins  in  the  sacrament  of 
penance.  This  consists  in  repairing,  so  far  as  in  our  power,  the 
injury  we  may  have  done  to  others.  It  is  an  essential  act  of 
justice  towards  an  injured  fellow-being  that  must  be  performed  ; 
otherwise  the  absolution  granted  will  avail  nothing.  The  stolen, 
or  dishonestly  obtained  property,  must  be  restored  to  its  right- 
ful owner ;  and  amends  must  be  made  to  the  person  whose 
character  and  feelings  have  been  injured  by  slander  or  detrac- 
tion. We  very  frequently  see  property  restored  to  the  true 
owner,  under  the  salutary  influence  of  this  doctrine,  and  its 
practical  application  by  the  Catholic  Church ;  while  such  in- 
stances are  much  more  rare  in  other  communions. 

That  this  doctrine  and  practice  of  satisfaction  was  the  faith 
of  the  Church  of  the  first  four  centuries,  seems  conclusively 
shown  from  the  testimony  of  the  ancient  Fathers.  The  whole 
system  called  the  penitential  canons  was  founded  upon  this  basis. 

The  first  extract  is  from  Hermas,  who  wrote  in  the  first  cen- 
tury: 

"  I  know  that  they  do  penitence  with  all  their  hearts.  But 
dost  thou,  therefore,  think  that  their  offences,  who  do  penance, 
are  immediately  blotted  out  ?  No :  they  are  not  presently ;  but 
it  is  necessary  that  he  who  does  penitence  afflict  his  soul,  and 
show  himself  humble  in  spirit  in  all  his  affairs,  and  undergo 
many  and  divers  vexations." 

Tertullian,  of  the  second  century,  says  : 


636  THE  SACRAMENT  OF  PENANCE. 

"  For,  by  the  afflicting  of  the  flesh  and  of  the  spirit,  we  at 
the  same  time  both  satisfy  for  things  past,  and  build  up  before 
hand  a  barrier  against  temptations  to  come."  (De  Baptismo, 
n.  20.)  This  he  said  of  those  who  were  about  to  enter  upon 
baptism. 

"  What,  then,  is  the  working  of  patience  in  the  body  ?  In 
the  first  place,  the  afflicting  of  the  flesh,  an  offering  propitiating 
the  Lord  by  the  sacrifice  of  humiliation,"  &c.  *  *  *  "  This  pa- 
tience of  the  body  commends  our  prayers,  strengthens  our  en- 
treaties for  mercy ;  this  opens  the  ears  of  Christ  our  God,  scat- 
ters abroad  his  severity,  draws  forth  his  mercy."  (De  Patiencia, 
n.  13.) 

Origen  :  "  Wherefore  if  any  one  be  conscious  to  himself  that 
he  has  within  him  a  mortal  sin,  and  that  he  has  not  cast  it  off 
from  himself,  through  a  penitence  of  the  fullest  satisfaction,  let 
him  not  hope  that  Christ  will  enter  into  his  soul."  (T.  ii.,  Horn, 
xii.  in  Levit.,  n.  3.) 

St.  Cyprian  :  "  Do  entire  penance  ;  evince  the  contrition  of 
a  sorrowing  and  grieving  mind.  That  penance  which  may  sat- 
isfy remains  alone  to  be  done  ;  but  they  shut  the  door  to  satis- 
faction who  deny  the  necessity  of  penance."  (De  Lapsis,  192.) 

St.  Augustine  :  "  It  is  not  enough  that  the  sinner  change  his 
ways,  and  depart  from  his  evil  works,  unless,  by  penitential  sor- 
row, by  humble  tears,  by  the  sacrifice  of  a  contrite  heart,  and 
by  alms-deeds,  he  make  satisfaction  to  God  for  what  he  has  com- 
mitted." (Horn,  i.,  T.  x.,  p.  208.) 

I  have  passed  over  the  testimonies  to  the  same  effect  of  Lac- 
tantius,  St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  St.  Basil,  St.  Pacian,  St.  Ambrose, 
St.  Jerome,  St.  J.  Chrysostom,  and  others. 

§  6.  Purgatory. 

The  Council  of  Trent  declared,  as  the  faith  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  "  that  there  is  a  purgatory,  and  that  the  souls  there  de- 
tained are  helped  by  the  suffrages  of  the  faithful,  but  princi- 
pally by  the  acceptable  sacrifice  of  the  altar." 

This  is  all  that  is  required  to  be  believed.  As  to  the  kind, 
and  measure  of  the  purifying  punishment,  the  Church  defines 
nothing. 

This  doctrine  has  been  very  much  misrepresented,  and  has 


PURGATORY  AND  PRAYERS  FOR  THE  DEAD.        637 

most  generally  been  attacked  by  sarcasm  and  denunciation.  But 
is  this  a  satisfactory  method  to  treat  a  grave  matter  of  faith, 
coming  down  to  us  from  the  olden  time  ? 

The  doctrine  of  Purgatory  is  most  intimately  connected  with 
the  doctrine  of  sacramental  absolution  and  satisfaction,  and 
legitimately  springs  from  it.  That  there  is  a  distinction  in  the 
guilt  of  different  sins,  must  be  conceded.  All  our  criminal  laws, 
and  those  of  all  nations,  are  founded  upon  this  idea.  To  say 
that  the  smallest  transgression,  the  result  of  inadvertence,  is 
equal  in  enormity  to  the  greatest  and  most  deliberate  crime,  is 
so  utterly  opposed  to  the  plain  nature  of  all  law,  and  to  the 
word  of  God,  which  assures  us  that  men  shall  be  punished  or 
rewarded  according  to  their  works,  (Rom.  ii.  6,)  as  not  to  re- 
quire any  refutation.  Our  Lord  assures  us  that  men  must  give 
an  account  in  the  day  of  judgment  for  every  idle  word  they 
speak  •  (Matt.  xii.  36  ;)  and  St.  John  tells  us  that  nothing  defiled 
shall  enter  heaven,  (Rev.  xxi.  27.)  Then  St.  John  says  there  is 
a  sin  unto  death,  and  there  is  a  sin  which  is  not  unto  death  ;  (1 
John  v.  16  ;)  and  he  also  tells  us  that  "all  unrighteousness  is 
sin :  and  there  is  a  sin  not  unto  death."  So  we  are  told  by  the 
same  apostle,  that  if  we  confess  our  sins,  God  is  faithful  and  just 
to  forgive  us,  (1  John  i.  9.) 

Now  we  must  put  all  these  texts  together,  and  give  them 
their  full,  harmonious,  and  consistent  force.  We  must  carry 
out  the  principles  laid  down  to  their  fair  and  logical  results. 
Suppose,  then,  a  man  speak  an  idle  word,  and  die  suddenly,  be- 
fore he  has  time  to  repent  and  confess  his  sin,  will  he  be  lost 
everlastingly  ?  Must  there  not,  in  the  very  nature  of  Christ's 
system,  be  a  middle  state,  wherein  souls  can  be  purged  from 
their  lesser  sins  ?  Was  not  the  great  Dr.  Johnson  right  when 
he  said,  speaking  of  the  Catholic  faith  in  reference  to  Purga- 
tory? 

"  They  are  of  opinion  that  the  generality  of  mankind  are 
neither  so  obstinately  wicked  as  to  deserve  everlasting  punish- 
ment, nor  so  good  as  to  merit  being  admitted  into  the  society 
of  blessed  spirits;  and,  therefore,  that  God  is  graciously 
pleased  to  allow  of  a  middle  state,  where  they  may  be  purified 
by  certain  degrees  of  suffering.  You  see,  sir,  there  is  nothing 
unreasonable  in  this."  (Boswell's  Life  of  Johnson.)  And  in 


638      PURGATORY  AND  PRAYERS  FOR  THE  DEAD. 

reference  to  prayers  for  the  dead,  the  Dr.  also  maintained,  that 
"  if  it  be  once  established  that  there  are  souls  in  purgatory,  it 
is  as  proper  to  pray  for  them,  as  for  our  brethren  of  mankind, 
who  are  yet  in  this  life."  * 

It  is  clear  that  the  practice  of  praying  for  the  dead  must 
rest  upon  the  basis,  that  there  is  a  middle  state.  It  would-be 
useless  to  pray  for  those  in  heaven,  who  needed  no  relief;  and 
equally  idle  to  pray  for  them  who  were  beyond  the  reach  of  help. 

It  is  related  in  the  twelfth  chapter  of  Second  Machabees, 
that  the  valiant  Judas  collected  and  sent  12,000  drachms  of  sil- 
ver to  Jerusalem  "  for  sacrifice  to  be  offered  for  the  sins  of  the 
dead,  thinking  well  and  religiously  concerning  the  resurrection. 
And  because  he  considered  that  they  who  have  fallen  asleep 
with  godliness  had  great  grace  laid  up  for  them.  It  is  therefore 
a  holy  and  a  wholesome  thought  to  pray  for  the  dead,  that  they 
may  be  loosed  from  their  sins." 

It  has  been  settled  by  the  Catholic  Church  that  this  book 
constitutes  part  of  the  canon  of  the  Old  Testament,  while  it  is 
not  admitted  by  Protestants.  But  all  must  concede  that  it  is 
authentic  history,  and  shows  the  faith  of  the  Jewish  Church  one 
hundred  and  fifty  years  before  Christ.  It  is  still  the  faith  of  the 
Jews.  Our  Lord  in  his  discourses  to  the  Jews,  knew  what  their 
belief  was.  This  fact  is  of  no  inconsiderable  importance,  for 
the  reason  that  He  nowhere  condemns  this  belief,  while  He  did 
condemn  certain  other  practices  of  the  Jews.  Then  again  St. 
Paul  speaks  of  the  practice  of  baptizing  for  the  dead  without 
censure.  (1  Cor.  xv.  29.) 

That  there  is  a  distinction  of  sins  and  their  punishments  is 
clear  from  several  texts  besides  those  already  referred  to. 
(Matt.  v.  22 ;  Luke  xii.  43-48  ;  Matt,  xxiii.  23 ;  xvi.  27.)  But 
our  Lord,  in  speaking  of  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost,  says  : 
"  It  shall  not  be  forgiven  him,  neither  in  this  world,  neither  in 
the  world  to  come."  (Matt.  xii.  32.) 

*  The  Dr.  was  in  the  habit  of  praying  for  his  deceased  wife : 
"  And,  0  Lord,  so  far  as  it  may  be  lawful  in  me,  I  commend  to  thy  fatherly 
goodness  the  soul  of  my  departed  wife';  beseeching  thee  to  grant  her  whatever 
is  best  in  her  present  state,  and  finally  to  receive  her  to  eternal  happiness."  He 
states  that  he  spent  March  22,  1 753,  in  prayers  and  tears  in  the  morning ;  and 
in  the  evening  he  prayed  for  her  conditionally. 


PURGATORY  AND  PRAYERS  FOR  THE  DEAD.       639 

Now  our  Lord  meant  to  convey  some  idea  by  saying  "  neither 
in  this  world,  neither  in  the  world  to  come."  We  cannot  sup- 
pose He  used  it  without  design.  Then  what  else  could  He 
mean,  but  to  say  that  this  sin  was  peculiar,  and  could  not  be  for- 
given in  either  state,  while  other  sins  might  be  forgiven  in  the 
one  or  the  other  ?  If  no  sin  could  be  forgiven  in  the  world  to 
come,  then  for  what  purpose  did  He  say  this  sin  could  not  there 
be  forgiven  ?  Why  distinguish  it  from  other  sins,  in  this  re- 
spect, when  no  distinction,  in  fact,  existed  ?  Did  our  Lord  do  I 
an  idle  thing  ?  Those  who  deny  that  our  Lord  meant  to  say 
that  some  sins  could  be  forgiven  in  the  world  to  come,  should 
do  one  of  two  things  :  either  tell  us  what  He  did  mean,  or  say 
at  once  that  He  meant  nothing.  To  object  to  our  interpretation, 
and  then  assume  to  give  us  nothing  better,  is  certainly  not  mag- 
nanimous. And  if  there  be  remission  of  sins  in  the  world  to 
come,  it  follows  that  there  must  be  a  middle  state,  as  this  for- 
giveness could  not  be  in  Heaven,  or  in  the  place  of  eternal  pun- 
ishment. 

There  is  a  passage  in  one  of  St.  Paul's  Epistles  that  has  al- 
ways been  held  by  the  Church  (as  will  be  seen  by  the  quota- 
tions that  will  be  made  from  the  Fathers)  to  relate  to  a  middle 
state  of  purgation.  The  passage  is  this  : 

"  Now  if  any  man  build  upon  this  foundation  gold,  silver, 
precious  stones,  wood,  hay,  stubble  ;  every  man's  work  shall  be 
made  manifest ;  for  the  day  shall  declare  it,  because  it  shall  be 
revealed  by  'fire ;  and  the  fire  shall  try  every  man's  work  of 
what  sort  it  is.  If  any  man's  work  abide  which  he  hath  built 
thereon,  he  shall  receive  a  reward.  If  any  man's  work  shall  be 
burned,  he  shall  suffer  loss  :  but  he  himself  shall  be  saved  ;  yet 
so  as  by  fire."  (1  Cor.  iii.  12-15.) 

There  is  a  great  deal  more  expressed  in  this  passage,  than 
would  at  first  appear.  Suppose  a  man  had  built  only  gold,  sil- 
ver, or  precious  stones,  or  all  together,  then  he  would  be  en- 
titled to  a  reward,  without  suffering  any  loss.  But  suppose  he 
had  built  only  wood,  hay,  or  stubble,  or  all  these  together,  he 
would  be  entitled  to  no  reward,  and  could  not  be  saved.  It  is 
only  in  the  case  where  the  gold,  silver,  or  precious  stones  have 
been  intermixed  with  the  wood,  hay,  or  stubble,  that  the  builder 
can  be  saved,  while  he  suffers  loss  himself.  The  apostle  does 


640      PURGATORY  AND  PRAYERS  FOR  THE  DEAD. 

not  say  that  the  party  escaping  is  himself  tried  by  fire,  but  he 
escapes  as  if  so  tried — comparing  the  ordeal  through  which  he 
himself  must  pass,  to  that  of  fire.  If  the  apostle  had  not  added 
the  words  :  "  but  he  himself  shall  be  saved  ;  yet  so  as  by  fire," 
we  could  only  have  concluded  that  he  alluded  to  the  test  of  the 
work  alone.  But  these  words  show  that  he  first  alludes  to  the 
test  of  the  work  ;  and,  afterwards,  to  the  ordeal  through  which 
the  builder  himself  must  pass,  because  of  his  having  built  such  ma- 
terials upon  the  foundation — Christ  Jesus.  To  have  intermixed 
such  gross  materials  with  those  that  were  suitable  for  a  founda- 
tion so  precious,  is  a  sin,  for  which  the  party  must  suffer  loss,  by 
being,  for  the  time,  deprived  of  heaven,  and  undergoing  the 
punishment  of  purgation. 

In  reference  to  the  testimony  of  the  Ancient  Fathers.  I  find 
the  passages  from  their  works  bearing  upon  this  subject  so  well 
arranged  by  Dr.  Wiseman,  that  I  extract  his  quotations  and  re- 
marks upon  them  entire.  (Moorfield  Lee.,  vol.  ii.,  p.  50,  sec.  xi.) 

"  Now  nothing  can  be  more  simple  than  to  establish  the  be- 
lief of  the  universal  Church  on  this  point.  The  only  difficulty  is 
to  select  such  passages  as  appear  the  clearest. 

"  I  will  begin  with  the  very  oldest  Father  of  the  Latin  Church, 
Tertullian,  who  advises  a  widow  '  to  pray  for  the  soul  of  her 
departed  husband,  entreating  repose  to  him,  and  participation 
in  the  first  resurrection,  and  making  oblations  for  him  on  the 
anniversary  day  of  his  death,  which,  if  she  neglect,  it  may  be 
truly  said  that  she  has  divorced  her  husband.'  (De  Monogamia, 
c.  10.)  To  make  an  oblation  on  the  anniversary  day  of  his 
death  ;  to  pray  that  he  may  have  rest, — is  not  this  more  like 
our  language  and  practice  than  those  of  any  other  religion  in 
England?  And  does  not  Tertullian  suppose  that  good  is  done 
to  the  faithful  departed  by  such  prayer  ?  And,  moreover,  does 
he  not  prescribe  it  as  a  solemn  duty,  rather  than  recommend  it 
as  a  lawful  practice  ? 

"  St.  Cyprian  thus  writes  :  c  Our  predecessors  prudently  ad- 
vised that  no  heathen,  departing  this  life,  should  nominate  any 
churchman  his  executor  ;  and  should  he  do  it,  that  no  oblation 
should  be  made  for  him,  nor  sacrifice  offered  for  his  repose  ;  of 
which  we  have  had  a  late  example,  where  no  oblation  was  made, 
nor  prayer,  in  his  name,  offered  in  the  church.'  It  was  consid- 


PURGATbRY  AND  PRATERS  FOR  THE  DEAD.       641 

ered,  therefore,  a  severe  punishment  that  prayers  and  sacrifices 
should  not  be  offered  up  for  those  who  had  violated  any  of  the 
ecclesiastical  laws.  There  are  many  other  passages  in  this  Fa- 
ther ;  but  I  proceed  to  Origen,  who  wrote  in  the  same  century, 
and  than  whom  no  one  can  be  clearer  regarding  this  doctrine  : 
4  When  we  depart  this  life,  if  we  take  with  us  virtues  or  vices, 
shall  we  receive  reward  for  our  virtues,  and  shall  those  tres- 
passes be  forgiven  to  us  which  we  knowingly  committed  ?  or 
shall  we  be  punished  for  our  faults,  and  not  receive  the  reward 
of  our  virtues  ?  '  That  is,  if  there  be  in  our  account  a  mixture 
of  good  and  evil,  shall  we  be  rewarded  for  the  good  without 
any  account  being  taken  of  the  evil,  or  punished  for  the  evil, 
without  the  good  being  taken  into  consideration  ?  This  query 
he  thus  answers  :  '  Neither  is  true  ;  because  we  shall  suffer  for 
our  sins,  and  receive  the  reward  of  our  good  actions.  For  if  on 
the  foundation  of  Christ  you  shall  have  built,  not  only  gold  and 
silver  and  precious  stones,  but  also  wood,  and  hay,  and  stubble, 
what  do  you  expect  when  the  soul  shall  be  separated  from  the 
body  ?  Would  you  enter  into  heaven  with  your  wood,  and  hay, 
and  stubble,  to  defile  the  kingdom  of  our  God  ?  or,  on  account 
of  those  incumbrances,  remain  without,  and  receive  no  reward 
for  your  gold,  and  silver,  and  precious  stones  ?  Neither  is  this 
just.  It  remains,  then,  that  you  be  committed  to  the  fire,  which 
shall  consume  the  light  materials ;  for  our  God,  to  those  who 
can  comprehend  heavenly  things,  is  called  a  consuming  fire, 
But  this  fire  consumes  not  the  creature,  but  what  the  creature 
has  himself  built, — wood,  and  hay,  and  stubble.  It  is  manifest 
that,  in  the  first  place,  the  fire  destroys  the  wood  of  our  trans- 
gressions, and  then  returns  to  us  the  re  ward  of  our  good  works." 
(Homil.  xvi.,  al  xii.  in  Jerem.,  T.  iii.,  p.  231,  232.)  Therefore,  ac- 
cording to  this  learned  Father,  (two  hundred  years  after  Christ,) 
when  the  soul  is  separated  from  the  body,  if  there  be  smaller 
transgressions,  it  is  condemned  to  fire,  which  purges  away  those 
light  materials,  and  thus  prepares  the  soul  for  entering  into 
heaven. 

"  St.  Basil,  or  a  contemporary  author,  writing  on  the  words 
of  Isaiah,  '  Through  the  wrath  of  the  Lord  is  burned,'  says  that 
the  things  which  are  earthly  shall  be  made  the  food  of  a  punish- 
ing fire  ;  to  the  end  that  the  soul  may  receive  favor  and  be  ben- 


PUKGATOKY  AND  PBATEKS  FOB  THE  DEAD. 

efited.  He  then  proceeds ;  '  And  the  people  shall  be  as  tfo 
fuel  of  the  fire:  (Ibid.)  This  is  uot  a  threat  of  extermina- 
tion ;  but  it  denotes  expurgation,  according  to  the  expression 
of  the  apostle:  If  any  man's  work  burn,  he  shall  suffer  loss  ; 
but  he  himself  shall  be  saved,  yet  so  as  by  fire.  (1  Cor.  iii.  15.) 
ISTow  mark  well  the  word  purgation  here  used.  For  it  proves 
that  our  very  term  purgatory  is  not  modern  in  the  Church.  St. 
Ephrem  of  Edessa  writes  thus  in  his  Testament :  '  My  breth- 
ren, come  to  me,  and  prepare  me  for  my  departure,  for  my 
strength  is  wholly  gone.  Go  along  with  me  in  psalms  and  in  your 
prayers  ;  and  please  constantly  to  make  oblations  for  me.  When 
the  thirtieth  day  shall  be  completed,  then  remember  me ;  for 
the  dead  are  helped  by  the  offerings  of  the  living  : '  the  very 
day  observed  by  the  Catholic  Church,  with  peculiar  solemnity, 
in  praying  and  offering  mass  for  the  dead.  '  If,  also,  the  sons 
of  Matthias,'  (he  alludes  to  the  very  passage  I  have  quoted  from 
Machabees,  2  Machab.  xii.,)  '  who  celebrated  their  feasts  in 
figure  only,  could  cleanse  those  [from  guilt]  by  their  offerings, 
who  fell  in  battle,  how  much  more  shall  the  priests  of  Christ  aid 
the  dead  by  their  oblations  and  prayer ! '  (In  Testament,  T.  ii., 
p.  234.) 

"  In  the  same  century,  St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  thus  expresses 
himself:  '  Thus  (in  the  liturgy  of  the  Church)  we  pray  for  the 
holy  Fathers  and  the  Bishops  that  are  dead  ;  and,  in  short,  for 
all  those  who  departed  this  life  in  our  communion ;  believing 
that  the  souls  of  those  for  whom  the  prayers  are  offered,  re- 
ceive very  great  relief  while  this  holy  and  tremendous  victim 
lies  upon  the  altar.'  (Catech.  Mystag.  v.,  n.  ix.  x.,  p.  328.)  St. 
Gregory  of  Nyssa  thus  contrasts  the  course  of  God's  provi- 
dence in  this  world  with  that  in  the  next.  In  the  present  life, 
c  God  allows  man  to  remain  subject  to  what  himself  has  chosen ; 
that,  having  tasted  of  the  evil  which  he  desired,  and  learned 
by  experience  how  bad  an  exchange  has  been  made,  he  might 
again  feel  an  ardent  wish  to  lay  down  the  load  of  those  vicea 
and  inclinations  which  are  contrary  to  reason  ;  and  thus,  in  this 
life,  being  renovated  by  prayers  and  the  pursuit  of  wisdom,  or, 
in  the  next,  being  expiated  by  the  purging  fire,  he  might  re- 
cover the  state  of  happiness  which  he  had  lost.  *  *  *  When 
he  has  quitted  his  body,  and  the  ^difference  between  virtue  and 


PURGATORY  AND  PRAYERS  FOR  THE  DEAL       643 

vice  is  known,  he  cannot  be  admitted  to  approach  the  Divinity 
till  the  purging  fire  shall  have  expiated  the  stains  with  which 
his  soul  was  infected.  That  same  fire  in  others  will  cancel  the 
corruption  of  matter  and  the  propensity  to  evil.'  (Orat.  de  De- 
functis.,  T.  ii.,  1066-8.)  St.  Ambrose,  throughout  his  works, 
has  innumerable  passages  on  this  subject,  and  quotes  St.  Paul's 
Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  (iii.  15,)  which  you  have  heard  al- 
ready cited  by  other  Fathers :  '  If  any  man's  works  burn,  he 
shall  suffer  loss ;  but  he  himself  shall  be  saved,  yet  so  as  by 
fire.'  I  will  quote  one  passage  out  of  many  :  u  But  he  shall  be 
saved,  yet  so  as  by  fire."  He  will  be  saved,  the  apostle  said, 
because  his  substance  shall  remain,  while  his  bad  doctrine  shall 
perish.  Therefore  he  said,  yet  so  as  by  fire  ;  in  order  that  his 
salvation  be  not  understood  to  be  without  pain.  He  shows  that 
he  shall  be  saved  indeed ;  but  he  shall  undergo  the  pain  of  fire, 
and  be  thus  purified  ;  not  like  the  unbelieving  and  wicked  man, 
who  shall  be  punished  in  everlasting  fire.'  (Comment,  in  1  Ep. 
ad  Cor.,  T.  ii.  in  app.,  p.  122.)  And  in  his  funeral  oration  on 
the  Emperor  Theodosius  he  thus  speaks :  '  Lately  we  deplored 
together  his  death,  and  now,  while  Prince  Honorius  is  present 
before  our  altars,  we  celebrate  the  fortieth  day.  Some  observe 
the  third  and  the  thirtieth,  others  the  seventh  and  the  fortieth. 
.  Give,  O  Lord,  rest  to  thy  servant  Theodosius,  that  rest  which 
Thou  hast  prepared  for  thy  saints.  May  his  soul  thither  tend 
whence  it  came,  where  it  cannot  feel  the  sting  of  death,  where  it 
will  learn  that  death  is  the  termination,  not  of  nature,  but  of  sin. 
I  loved  him,  therefore  I  will  follow  him  to  the  land  of  the  living  ; 
I  will  not  leave  him,  till,  by  my  prayers  and  lamentations,  he 
shall  be  admitted  to  the  holy  mount  of  the  Lord,  to  which  his 
deserts  call  him.' 

"  St.  Epiphanius,  in  the  same  century :  '  There  is  nothing 
more  opportune,  nothing  more  to  be  admired,  than  the  rite 
which  directs  the  names  of  the  dead  to  be  mentioned.  They 
are  aided  by  the  prayer  which  is  offered  for  them,  though  it 
may  not  cancel  all  their  faults.  We  mention  both  the  just  and 
sinners,  in  order  that  for  the  latter  we  may  obtain  mercy? 
(Hser.  Iv.  sive  Ixxv.,  T.  i.,  p.  911.)  St.  Jerome:  'As  we  be- 
lieve the  torments  of  the  devil,  and  of  those  wicked  men  who 
said  in  their  hearts  there  is  no  God,  to  be  eternal ;  so,  in  regard 


644       PURGATORY  AND  PRAYERS  FOR  THE  DEAD. 

to  those  sinners  who  have  not  denied  their  faith,  and  whose 
works  will  be  proved  and  purged  by  fire,  we  conclude  that  the 
sentence  of  the  judge  will  be  tempered  by  mercy.'  (Comment, 
in  c.  Ixv.  Isai.,  T.  ii.,  p.  492.)  Not  to  be  tedious,  I  will  quote 
only  one  Father  more,  the  great  St.  Augustine  :  '  The  prayers  of 
the  Church,'  he  writes,  '  or  of  good  persons,  are  heard  in  favor 
of  those  Christians  who  departed  this  life,  not  so  bad  as  to  be 
deemed  unworthy  of  mercy,  nor  so  good  as  to  be  entitled  to 
immediate  happiness.  So,  also,  at  the  resurrection  of  the  dead, 
there  will  some  be  found  to  whom  mercy  will  be  imparted, 
having  gone  through  those  pains  to  which  the  spirits  of  the 
dead  are  liable.  Otherwise  it  would  not  have  been  said  of  some 
with  truth,  that  their  sin  shall  not  be  forgiven,  neither  in  this 
world  nor  in  the  world  to  come,  (Matt  xii.  32,)  unless  some  sins 
were  remitted  in  the  next  world.'  (De  Civit.  Dei,  Lib.  xxi.,  c. 
xxiv.,  p.  642.)  St.  Augustine's  reasoning  is  here  precisely  the 
same  as  I  have  used,  and  as  every  Catholic  man  uses.  In  an- 
other passage  he  quotes  the  words  of  St.  Paul,  as  follows  :  4  If 
they  had  built  gold  and  silver  and  precious  stones,  they  would 
be  secure  from  both  fires ;  not  only  from  that  in  which  the 
wicked  shall  be  punished  forever,  but  likewise  from  that  fire 
which  will  purify  those  who  shall  be  saved  by  fire.  But  because 
it  is  said,  he  shall  be  saved,  that  fire  is  thought  lightly  of,  though 
the  suffering  will  be  more  grievous  than  any  thing  man  can  un- 
dergo in  this  life.' 

"  These  passages  contain  precisely  the  same  doctrine  as  the 
Catholic  Church  teaches ;  and  had  I  introduced  them  into  my 
discourse  without  telling  you  from  whom  they  are  taken,  no 
one  would  have  supposed  that  I  was  swerving  from  the  doctrine 
taught  by  our  Church.  It  is  impossible  to  imagine  that  the 
sentiments  of  these  writers  agreed,  on  this  point,  with  that  of 
any  other  religion." 

I  will  only  add  one  extract  to  those  given  by  the  distin- 
guished lecturer.  It  is  the  language  of  St.  Monica,  the  mother 
of  the  great  Augustine,  addressed  to  him  by  her  while  she  was 
on  her  death-bed.  "  Lay,"  she  said,  "  this  body  anywhere  ;  let 
not  the  care  of  it  any  way  disturb  you :  this  only  I  request  of 
you,  that  you  would  remember  me  at  the  altar  of  the  Lord, 
wherever  you  be."  (T.  i.,  L.  ix.  Confess.,  n.  27,  col.  285.) 


INDULGENCES. 

§  7.  Indulgences. 

No  doctrine  of  the  Catholic  Church  has  been  more  misun- 
derstood, or  more  distorted,  than  the  article  concerning  Indul- 
gences. The  best  method  of  correcting  these  misapprehensions 
on  the  part  of  sincere  persons,  is  to  give  a  clear  statement  of  the 
doctrine  itself.  In  the  first  place,  an  Indulgence  has  not  the 
slightest  reference  to  future  sin,  and  is  not,  therefore,  any  license 
to  commit  it  in  any  form.  Nor  is  it  a  remission  of  either  the 
eternal  guilt  of  sin,  or  of  the  eternal  punishment  due  to  it.  It 
is  simply  a  remission,  in  whole  or  in  part,  of  the  temporary 
punishment  deserved  for  sins  committed  after  baptism,  or  a  com- 
mutation of  that  punishment. 

In  the  Catholic  theory,  as  we  have  seen,  the  interior  or  eternal 
guilt  of  sin,  and  the  eternal  punishment  due  to  it,  are  both  remit- 
ted by  contrition,  confession,  and  absolution,  except  in  that  class 
of  cases  wherein  we  have  injured  our  neighbor,  and  wherein  a  fur- 
ther act — an  act  of  just  reparation — must  be  performed  before 
the  remission  of  the  eternal  guilt  and  punishment  becomes  com- 
plete. But  after  the  eternal  guilt  and  punishment  of  sin  have 
been  remitted  in  the  sacrament  of  penance,  God  has  reserved, 
as  we  have  seen  in  treating  of  the  doctrine  of  satisfaction,  a 
certain  degree  of  mere  temporary  punishment,  proportioned  to 
the  offence.  The  object  of  this  temporary  punishment  is  to 
make  a  partial  atonement  for  the  sin  committed,  to  correct  the 
evil  habit,  and  to  give  evidence  of  a  true  repentance.  The 
power  to  relax  this  temporary  punishment,  or  to  substitute  an- 
other for  it,  as  after-circumstances  may  justly  require,  is  the 
power  to  grant  an  indulgence. 

The  power  to  grant  indulgences  is  but  a  legitimate  conse- 
quence resulting  from  the  powers  to  bind  and  loose,  to  remit 
and  retain  sins,  originally  conferred  by  Christ  upon  the  Church. 
These  powers  necessarily  include  the  power  and  duty  to  deter- 
mine the  character  of  the  particular  sin  committed  after  bap- 
tism, and  the  weight  of  the  circumstances  attending  it,  and  to 
assess  the  amount,  and  designate  the  kind,  of  the  temporary 
punishment  named  by  the  law  of  God.  It  is  strictly  a  judicial 
power,  applying  the  existing  law  to  the  facts  and  circumstances 
of  each  particular  case.  If  this  right  and  duty  of  the  Church 


646  INDULGENCES. 

be  conceded,  then  the  right  to  mitigate  this  punishment,  or  to 
substitute  another  for  it,  as  subsequent  circumstances  may  just- 
ly require,  must  belong  to  the  power  that  originally  imposed 
this  temporary  punishment.  It  will  be  seen  at  once,  by  the 
calm  and  sensible  reader,  that,  in  the  contemplation  of  the  Cath- 
olic theory,  the  granting  of  an  indulgence  cannot  affect,  in  any 
way,  the  eternal  condition  of  the  party  to  whom  it  is  granted, 
but  only  his  temporary  condition. 

This  power  of  pardon  or  commutation,  after  conviction  and 
sentence,  is  retained  by  ah1  civil  governments.  The  exercise  of 
it  depends  upon  subsequent  circumstances,  unforeseen  at  the 
time  the  punishment  was  assessed.  The  object  of  criminal  pun- 
ishment is  expiatory,  preventive,  and  reformatory.  The  good 
conduct  of  the  criminal  during  his  imprisonment,  may  consti- 
tute strong  evidence  of  a  real  reformation.  It  often  happens 
that  the  executive  of  a  state  will  pardon  the  convict  at  such  a 
time  as  to  remit  the  punishment  in  part  only.  It  is  not  uncom-r 
mon  for  pardon  to  be  granted  upon  conditions,  or  only  a  few 
days  before  the  expiration  of  the  term  of  imprisonment  fixed 
by  the  sentence,  so  as  to  restore  the  prisoner  to  the  rights  of 
citizenship.  It  is  true  this  power  of  pardon  may  be,  and  often 
has  been,  indiscreetly  exercised.  But  still  every  civilized  gov- 
ernment in  the  world,  so  far  as  I  am  advised,  retains  it. 

The  case  of  the  Corinthian  who  had  his  father's  wife,  is  one 
in  which  the  power  of  granting  an  indulgence  was  exercised  in 
the  Apostolical  Church.  In  reference  to  this  case  the  apostle 
says : 

"  For  I  verily,  as  absent  in  body,  but  present  in  spirit,  have 
judged  already,  as  though  I  was  present,  concerning  him  that 
hath  so  done  this  deed.  In  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
when  ye  are  gathered  together,  and  my  spirit,  with  the  power 
of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  to  deliver  such  an  one  unto  Satan  for 
the  destruction  of  the  flesh,  that  the  spirit  may  be  saved  in  the 
day  of  the  Lord  Jesus." 

There  are  several  important  facts  to  be  collected  from  this 
passage :  1.  The  apostle  had  judged  the  party  guilty  of  this 
crime.  2.  He  commanded  his  brethren,  in  the  name  and  with 
the  power  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  publicly  to  deliver  the  guilty  party 
to  Satan.  3.  This  punishment  was  temporary,  as  it  was  intend- 


INDULGENCES.  647 

ed  for  the  destruction  of  the  flesh,  and  the  ultimate  safety  of 
the  spirit.  4.  The  punishment  was  inflicted  by  the  authority 
of  Christ. 

The  effect  of  this  punishment  was  such  as  was  anticipated. 
The  culprit  was  plunged  into  the  deepest  affliction ;  and  the 
apostle  in  his  second  Epistle  thus  refers  to  this  case : 

"  Sufficient  to  such  a  man  is  this  punishment,  which  was  in- 
flicted of  many.  So  that  contrariwise  ye  ought  rather  to  for- 
give him,  and  comfort  him,  lest  perhaps  such  a  one  should  be 
swallowed  up  with  overmuch  sorrow.  Wherefore  I  beseech 
you  that  you  would  confirm  your  love  toward  him.  To  whom 
ye  forgive  any  thing,  I  forgive  also :  for  if  I  forgave  any  thing, 
to  whom  I  forgave  it,  for  your  sakes  forgave  I  it  in  the -person 
of  Christ." 

It  will  be  seen  by  examining  the  two  chapters  from  which 
these  extracts  are  taken,  (1  Cor.  v.  and  2  Cor.  ii.,)  that  the  pun- 
ishment was  prescribed  by  the  apostle  himself,  and  the  party 
forgiven  by  him  in  the  person  of  Christ.  The  Church  at  Cor- 
inth only  acted  under  the  command  of  the  apostle.  The  apos- 
tle in  his  second  Epistle  refers  to  the  severity  of  the  punishment 
inflicted  by  the  whole  congregation  under  his  command ;  and 
tells  his  brethren  that  they  ought  to  forgive  and  comfort  the 
member,  "  lest  perhaps  he  should  be  swallowed  up  with  over- 
much sorrow."  In  the  case  of  Hymenaeus  and  Alexander,  the 
apostle  says  he  delivered  them  to  Satan ;  but  it  does  not  appear 
that  it  was  done  publicly.  (1  Tim.  i.  20.)  By  his  sorrow,  the 
offending  member  procured  a  mitigation  of  his  sentence,  and 
was  forgiven  and  restored  to  the  full  privileges  of  membership. 

The  temporary  punishment  for  sin,  inflicted  by  the  ancient 
Church,  consisted  in  abstaining  from  all  amusements,  giving  the 
time  of  the  sinner  to  prayer  and  good  works,  rigorous  fasting, 
and  other  penitential  exercises,  for  and  during  a  period  of  time 
proportioned  to  the  nature  of  the  offence.  Sometimes  this  pen- 
ance only  lasted  a  few  days,  sometimes  for  several  years,  and  in 
very  extreme  cases,  during  life.  During  the  continuance  of  the 
several  persecutions  which  occurred  in  the  first  three  centuries 
of  the  Christian  era,  many  believers  denied  the  faith  and  sacri- 
ficed to  idols.  The  Council  of  Nice  in  325  decreed  that  "  those 
who  had  fallen  away  without  necessity,  or  without  the  taking 


64:8  INDULGENCES. 

away  of  their  goods,  or  without  being  in  danger,  or  something 
of  this  kind,  as  happened  under  the  tyranny  of  Licinius,  though 
they  were  unworthy  of  indulgence,  they  should  nevertheless  be 
dealt  with  mercifully.  And  as  many,  therefore,  as  truly  repent, 
shall  pass  three  years  amongst  the  hearers  as  believers,  and  dur- 
ing seven  years  they  shall  be  prostrators,  and  during  two  years 
they  shall  communicate  with  the  people  in  the  prayers  without 
the  oblation."  (Can.  xi.,  col.  33,  t.  ii.,  Lubbi.)  In  the  next  canon 
it  was  decreed,  among  other  things,  as  follows :  "  But  in  all 
these  persons  it  is  proper  to  examine  the  purpose  and  appear- 
ance of  their  penitence ;  for  as  many  as,  in  fear,  and  tears,  and 
patience,  and  good  works,  manifest  their  conversion  indeed,  and 
not  in  appearance  (only,)  these  having  completed  the  appointed 
time  as  hearers,  may  communicate  in  the  prayers  ;  together  with 
authority  to  the  bishop  to  determine  something  yet  more  indul- 
gent respecting  them.  But  as  many  as  have  borne  (their  sen- 
tence) indifferently,  and  think  the  form  of  entering  into  the 
Church  sufficient  for  their  conversion,  must  complete  the  whole 
time." 

It  will  be  remembered  that  the  Novatians  separated  from 
the  Church  because  she  permitted  the  lapsed  or  fallen,  as  they 
were  called,  to  return  to  the  Church,  after  undergoing  due  pen- 
ance. This  penance  was  called  canonical,  because  of  the  canons 
or  rules  adopted  for  its  regulation. 

The  Council  of  Ancyra  in  315,  in  its  5th  canon,  says,  in  ref- 
erence to  those  who  had  fallen :  "  But  the  bishops  have  the 
power,  having  considered  the  manner  of  their  conversion,  to 
deal  indulgently  with  them,  or  to  add  a  longer  period.  But, 
above  all  things,  let  their  previous  as  well  as  their  subsequent 
life  be  inquired  into,  and  so  let  the  indulgence  be  measured  out?* 

One  of  the  means  of  procuring  this  mitigation  of  the  tempo- 
ral punishment  inflicted,  was  the  recommendation  of  the  holy 
martyrs,  given  on  the  eve  of  their  martyrdom.  This  practice 
was  but  following  the  example  of  St.  Paul,  who  forgave  the  in- 
cestuous Corinthian  for  the  sake  of  his  brethren.  In  reference 
to  this  practice,  Tertullian  says,  before  he  became  a  Montanist  : 

"  Let  not  the  devil  so  prosper  in  his  own  kingdom,  as  to  set 
you  at  variance,  but  let  him  find  you  guarded  and  armed  with 
concord,  because  your  peace  is  war  against  him,  which  peace 


INDULGENCES.  649 

some  not  finding  in  the  church,  have  been  wont  to  entrtatof  the 
martyrs  in  prison."  (Ad  Martyr.,  n.  1,  p.  137.) 

After  he  became  a  Montanist  he  inveighed  against  this  prac- 
tice ;  but  his  subsequent  invectives  could  not  destroy  his  testi- 
mony as  to  the  practice  of  the  Church,  while  he  was  one  of  her 
members. 

St.  Cyprian,  in  the  third  century,  speaking  of  the  same  prac- 
tice, and  addressing  the  martyrs,  says  : 

"  And,  therefore,  I  entreat  you  to  specify  by  name  in  your 
tickets,  persons  whom  ye  yourselves  see  and  know,  whose 
penitence  you  behold  approaching  very  near  to  satisfaction. 
(Ep.  x.  ad  Martyr,  et  Confess.,  p.  51-54.) 

In  his  address  to  his  clergy,  speaking  of  the  lapsed  and  fallen, 
he  says : 

"Since  I  find  that  it  will  not  be  in  my  power  to  come 
amongst  you,  I  think  that  the  cases  of  our  brethren  ought  to  be 
met,  so  that  they  who  have  received  tickets  from  the  martyrs, 
and  who  are  helped  by  their  privilege  with  God,  if  they  arc 
seized  with  any  ailment,  or  danger  of  sickness,  may,  without 
waiting  for  my  presence,  make  confession  of  their  sin  before  any 
priest  whatever ;  *  *  *  that  they  may  go  to  the  Lord  with  that 
peace  which  the  martyrs,  by  their  letters  unto  us,  have  desired 
might  be  granted."  (Ep.  xii.  ad  clerum,  p.  55.) 

I  will  add  only  one  other  testimony,  and  that  from  St. 
Gregory  of  Nyssa,  who  wrote  in  370  :  "  The  canon  law  is  this : 
that  they  who  have  defiled  themselves  by  fornication,  shall  be 
utterly  cast  forth  from  prayer  during  three  years :  be  allowed 
to  be  hearers  only  for  three  further  years.  But,  in  favor  of 
those  who,  with  special  zeal,  avail  themselves  of  the  (time  of) 
conversion,  and  in  their  lives  exhibit  a  return  to  what  is  good, 
it  is  in  his  power,  who  has  the  regulation  of  the  dispensation  of 
the  church  for  a  beneficial  end,  to  shorten  the  period  of  hearing, 
and  to  introduce  such  men  earlier  to  the  (state)  of  conversion, 
and  further  to  lessen  this  period  also,  and  to  bestow  communion 
earlier,  according  as,  from  his  own  judgment,  he  comes  to  a  de- 
cision respecting  the  state  of  the  person  under  cure."  (T.  ii., 
Ep.  Con.  ad  S.  Letoiurn,  p.  119.) 

I  have  passed  over  the  testimonies  of  St.  Basil,  St.  Innocent, 

56 


650  INDULGENCES. 

and  the  decrees  of  the  Council  of  Orange  in  441,  and  4th 
Carthage  in  398,  in  support  of  this  doctrine. 

I  have  included  Penance,  Purgatory,  and  Indulgences  in  one 
chapter,  because  they  constitute,  in  fact,  but  portions  of  one  sub- 
ject. The  limits  of  my  work  have  not  allowed  me  to  notice  more 
than  the  main  points ;  and  I  must  refer  the  reader,  who  desires 
more  full  and  detailed  information,  to  the  Moorfield  Lectures  of 
Dr.  Wiseman,  who  has  treated  these  different  heads  with  great 
fulness  and  the  most  masterly  ability.  I  will  conclude  this  chap- 
ter with  his  summary  of  the  grounds  upon  which  the  doctrine 
of  Indulgences  rests : 

"  From  all  I  have  said,  you  will  easily  conclude  that  our  in- 
dulgence, and  that  of  the  ancient  Church,  rest  upon  the  follow- 
ing common  grounds :  First,  that  satisfaction  has  to  be  made  to 
God  for  sin  remitted,  under  the  authority  and  regulation  of  the 
Church.  2d.  That  the  Church  has  always  considered  herself 
possessed  of  the  authority  to  mitigate,  by  diminution  or  com- 
mutation, the  penance  which  she  enjoins ;  and  that  she  has  al- 
ways reckoned  such  a  mitigation  valid  before  God,  who  sanctions 
and  accepts  it.  3d.  That  the  sufferings  of  the  saints,  in  union 
with,  and  by  virtue  of  Christ's  merits,  are  considered  available 
towards  the  granting  this  mitigation.  4th.  That  such  mitiga- 
tions, when  prudently  and  justly  granted,  are  conducive  towards 
the  spiritual  weal  and  profit  of  Christians." 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

OF    THE     INVOCATION    OF     SAINTS  :      THEIR    RELICS     AND 

IMAGES. 

§  1.  The  Invocation  of  Saints. 

IN  reference  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Catholic  Church  con- 
cerning the  Invocation  of  Saints,  the  Council  of  Trent  declares : 

*  *  *  *  "that  the  saints  who  reign  with  Christ,  offer  up  to 
God  their  prayers  for  men  ;  that  it  is  good  and  profitable,  sup- 
pliantly  to  invoke  them,  and  to  fly  to  their  prayers,  help,  and 
assistance,  for  the  obtaining  of  benefits  from  God  through  His 
Son  Jesus  Christ,  our  Lord,  who  is  alone  our  Redeemer  and 
Saviour."  (Sess.  xxv.) 

It  will  be  seen  that  this  language  is  very  clear  and  distinct. 
The  matters  affirmed  are  simply  these :  1 .  That  the  saints  in 
glory  offer  up  prayers  for  us.  2.  That  it  is  good  and  profitable 
to  invoke  them.  3.  That  this  is  done  for  the  obtaining  of  bene- 
fits from  God  through  His  Son,  who  alone  is  our  Redeemer  and 
Saviour.  By  this  decree  it  is  not  declared  to  be  essential,  but 
<;nly  good  and  profitable,  to  invoke  the  prayers  of  the  saints  in 
glory.  It  will  also  be  observed,  that  the  Giver  of  all  the  bene- 
fits asked  for,  is  God  Himself,  who  bestows  them,  in  and  through 
the  merits  of  Christ ;  and  that  the  saints  who  pray  for  us,  are 
regarded  simply  as  inferior  petitioners  in  behalf  of  their  own 
brethren. 

In  the  Apostles'  Creed,  conceded  by  most  Protestants  to 
contain  true  doctrine,  it  is  said :  "  I  believe  in  the  communion 
of  saints."  What  is  meant  by  this  communion  of  saints  ? 

When  we  concede  that  our  Lord  was  a  Divine  Lawgiver, 
and  that  He  organized  a  visible  Church,  we  concede  that  this 


652  INVOCATION    OF    SAINTS. 

Church  must  be  a  continuing  corporation.  It  is  an  artificial 
person,  composed  of  all  the  members  belonging  to  it,  in  every  age 
and  nation.  These  members  or  corporators,  in  the  contempla- 
tion of  the  theory,  never  die.  They  change  their  state ;  but 
they,  in  fact,  die  not.  They  quit  earth,  and  reach  Heaven  ;  but 
they  still  live  on.  As  never-dying  members  of  one  great  corpo- 
rate body,  they  are  each  and  all  interested  in  the  success  of  the 
corporation  ;  and  as  the  aggregate  rightful  success  of  the  whole, 
]s  made  up  of  the  rightful  success  of  each  member,  they  are  all 
interested  in  the  welfare  of  each,  and  are  thus  all  constituted 
"  members  one  of  another,"  as  St.  Paul  says. 

This  apostle,  in  different  passages,  speaks  of  all  Christians  as 
forming  members  of  but  one  corporate  body.  When  he  speaks 
of  those  Christians  who  will  be  alive  at  the  second  coming  of 
Christ,  he  says  :  "  We  that  are  alive,"  &c.  So,  when  he  speaks 
of  the  resurrection  of  Christians,  he  says  :  "  We  shall  be  changed." 
And  to  show  the  intimate  relationship  existing  among  Chris- 
tians, he  tells  his  brethren  that  they  are  come  to  the  heavenly 
Jerusalem,  and  to  the  spirits  of  just  men  made  perfect.  (Heb. 
xvi.  22.) 

But  in  the  fourth  chapter  of  Ephesians,  and  twelfth  of  First 
Corinthians,  he  gives  us  the  clearest  statement.  He  therein  calls 
the  entire  Church  the  body  of  Christ ;  and  says  that  our  Lord 
gave  certain  orders  to  the  Church.  And  these  different  orders 
were  given  by  Christ  to  the  entire  Church,  not  alone  to  the 
Church  of  the  Apostolic  day.  And  as  every  member  of  the  nat- 
ural body  must  sympathize  with  every  other ;  so,  every  member 
of  this  corporate  body — the  Church — must  equally  sympathize 
with  all  the  others.  And  as  all  the  saints  are  immortal  mem- 
bers of  the  same  enduring  corporation,  and  are  each  and  all  in- 
terested in  the  spiritual  welfare  of  each,  and  of  the  whole  com- 
bined, they  can  assist  each  other  ;  and  this  sweet  relationship  is 
fitly  termed  "  the  communion  of  saints." 

That  there  is  a  connecting  chain  of  sympathy  and  good 
offices  between  the  suffering  saints  on  earth,  and  their  own 
brethren  in  heaven,  would  seem  to  follow,  not  only  from  the  very 
nature  and  purposes  of  the  system  of  Christ,  but  from  many 
facts  expressly  stated  in  the  Scripture. 

In  the  dealings  of  the  Almighty  with  His  chosen  people,  an 


INVOCATION   OF   SAINTS.  653 

gels  were  often  employed  as  instruments  by  God.  The  exam- 
ples are  too  numerous  to  require  any  reference.  "We  are  told 
by  Christ,  that  we  shall  be  "  as  the  angels  of  God  in  heaven." 
(Matt.  xxii.  30.)  And  our  Lord  also  said  :  "Take  heed  that  ye 
despise  not  one  of  these  little  ones ;  for  I  say  unto  you,  that  in 
heaven  their  angels  do  always  behold  the  face  of  my  Father 
which  is  in  heaven."  (Matt,  xviii.  10.)  In  this  passage  we  are 
not  only  told  that  those  little  ones*  have  their  angels,  but  that 
those  angels  always  behold  the  face  of  God.  And  we  are 
warned  not  to  offend  those  little  ones,  because  it  will  offend 
their  guardian  angels ;  and  those,  being  present  with  God,  will 
use  their  influence  with  Him  to  bring  down  punishment  upon 
us.  St.  Paul  also  tells  us  that  angels  are  "  all  ministering  spirits, 
sent  forth  to  minister  for  them  who  shall  be  heirs  of  salvation." 
(Heb.  i.  14.)  And  we  are  told  by  our  Lord  that  there  is  joy  in 
heaven  over  one  sinner  doing  penance.  (Luke  xv.  7-10.)  And 
St.  John  tells  us  that  "  another  angel  came  and  stood  at  the 
altar,  having  a  golden  censer ;  and  there  was  given  unto  him 
much  incense,  that  he  should  offer  it  with  the  prayers  of  all 
saints  upon  the  golden  altar,  which  was  before  the  throne. 
And  the  smoke  of  the  incense,  which  came  with  the  prayers  of 
the  saints,  ascended  up  before  God  out  of  the  angel's  hand." 
(Rev.  viii.  3-4.) 

In  reference  to  these  texts  Dr.  Wiseman  has  these  clear  and 
forcible  remarks : 

"  From  all  this  it  is  proved  that  the  saints  and  angels  know 
what  passes  on  earth — that  they  are  aware  of  what  we  do  and 
suffer ;  otherwise  they  could  not  rejoice  in  any  good  that  we  do, 
nor  resent  any  misfortune  that  befalls  us.  In  the  second  place, 
we  have  it  sufficiently  proved  that  the  saints  do  more  than  bare- 
ly know  and  interest  themselves  about  us,  for  they  actually  pre- 
sent our  prayers  to  God,  and  intercede  in  our  behalf  with  Him. 
Here,  then,  is  a  basis,  and  a  sufficient  one,  for  the  Catholic  be- 
lief,— such  a  basis  as  surely  should  give  rise  to  some  doctrine 
or  other  in  the  true  religion.  But  where  is  this  doctrine  to  be 
found  in  those  religious  systems  which  reject  and  exclude  all 
intercession  of  the  saints,  all  intercourse  between  those  on  earth 
and  their  brethren  in  bliss  ?  Assuredly  these  texts  prove  some- 
thing. For  if  all  contained  in  the  Word  of  God  is  true,  and 


654:  INVOCATION    OF    SAIN1 

must  form  a  rule  of  faith,  such  clear  testimony  as  this,  regard- 
ing the  connection  between  mankind  and  the  blessed,  must  form 
the  subject  of  a  doctrine.  Where,  then,  is  this  found  ?  No- 
where but  in  the  Catholic  belief, — that  prayers  are  offered  for 
us  by  the  saints,  and  that,  therefore,  we  may  apply  to  them  for 
their  supplications."  (Moorfield  Lee.,  vol.  ii.,  87.) 

The  moment  we  concede  the  existence  of  God  and  His  su- 
perintending care  over  us,  that  moment  it  becomes  as  natural 
for  us  to  pray  as  to  breathe.  And  it  is  just  as  natural  to  pray 
for  those  we  love  as  it  is  to  pray  for  ourselves.  And  by  the 
law  of  Christ,  it  is  made  our  express  duty  to  pray  even  for  those 
who  persecute  us.  (Matt.  v.  44.} 

In  the  last  chapter  of  the  Book  of  Job,  the  Lord  directed 
Eliphaz  to  procure  the  prayers  of  His  holy  servant,  saying :  "  My 
servant  Job  shall  pray  for  you  :  for  him  will  I  accept."  Moses 
often  prayed  for  the  children  of  Israel,  and  averted,  by  his  pray- 
ers, the  threatened  wrath  of  God.  In  the  New  Testament  it  is 
shown  to  have  been  the  universal  practice  for  the  saints  to  pray 
for  one  another,  and  that  St.  Paul  constantly  prayed  for  his 
brethren,  and  often  asked  their  prayers  for  himself.  And  St. 
James  tells  us  that  "  the  effectual  fervent  prayer  of  a  righteous 
man  availeth  much."  (James  v.  16.)  This  he  says  with  refer- 
ence to  prayers  for  others.  So  plainly  is  this  principle  estab- 
lished, that  all  professed  Christians  pray  for  each  other.  It 
would  seem  that  no  man  who  admits  the  duty  of  prayer  at  all, 
could  deny  the  necessity  of  this  practice.  It  is  our  duty  to  do 
all  the  good  we  can ;  and,  therefore,  we  should  aid  others  by 
our  prayers,  as  well  as  other  good  offices. 

This  duty  and  utility  of  prayer  must  rest  upon  some  great 
principle.  As  the  practice  is  not  an  idle  one,  it  must  have  its 
foundation  in  some  great  fundamental  truth.  It  must  rest  upon 
the  intimate  connection  between  the  seen  and  the  unseen  world 
— between  the  governing  Creator  and  the  governed  creature—- 
upon the  never-ceasing  power  and  disposition  of  God  to  grant 
us  favors,  at  all  times,  when  we  need  arid  properly  ask  for  them. 
And  our  duty  to  pray  for  each  other  arises  from  our  natural 
relationship,  and  the  duty  we  owe  to  our  Lord,  who  desires 
alike  the  salvation  of  all  men.  Are  we  not  all  brethren  ?  Are 


INVOCATION    OF    SAINTS.  655 

we  not  bound  to  extend  our  Master's  kingdom  by  every  just 
means  ?  Is  not  this  right  ? 

If,  then,  a  saint,  while  on  earth,  can  aid  his  brethren  by  his 
prayers,  upon  what  principle  can  we  say  that  his  power  for  good 
ceases,  when  this  same  saint  gets  to  heaven  ?  Can  he  not  still 
make  known  his  wishes  to  God  ?  And  has  not  the  Almighty 
still  the  same  power  and  disposition  to  hear  the  devout  and 
humble  petitions  of  His  servants?  Did  the  ardent  Paul  and 
the  intrepid  old  Peter  cease  to  love  their  brethren  the  moment 
they  reached  heaven  ?  Are  we  not  assured  that  faith  and  hope 
are  swallowed  up  in  absolute  certainty  in  that  blissful  abode,  while 
charity,  the  ever-beautiful,  still  lives  on  ?  And  is  not  this  sweet 
virtue  called  the  greatest,  because  everlasting  ?  Who  can  be- 
lieve that  the  saints  in  glory  forget  to  love  their  suffering  breth- 
ren on  earth  ?  Is  not  such  a  theory  one  of  the  dryest  and  most 
withering  in  the  universe,  and  well  suited,  in  its  very  nature, 
to  the  coldest  heart  and  the  most  perverted  understanding  ? 

And  if  the  saints  in  glory  love  us,  this  love  must  be  active 
and  effectual.  Of  what  value  is  a  love  that  never  does  any  good 
for  the  object  beloved  ?  Did  our  Creator  implant  in  our  hearts 
and  souls  the  desire  of  immortality,  without  any  intention  to 
gratify  so  beautiful  and  so  natural  a  wish  ?  And  will  our  Lord 
permit  the  saints  in  glory  to  love  us,  and  of  course  to  ardently 
desire  our  good,  and  yet  not  permit  this  holy  love  to  do  us  any 
service  ?  Why  is  this  holy  love  and  desire  permitted  to  exist, 
if  not  for  practical  exercise  ?  Are  there  no  sweet  prayers  of- 
fered in  heaven  ?  Have  the  saints  in  glory  no  wishes  to  gratify, 
no  favors  to  ask  for  their  brethren  in  this  tempting  world  ?  Who 
can  believe  that  they  love  us  not  ?  And  if  they  love  us,  who 
can  believe  that  they  never  pray  for  us  ? — that  while  they  love 
us,  they  are  still  indifferent  as  to  our  condition  ? — that  if  they 
do  desire  our  good,  they  still  dare  not  make  these  desires 
known  ? — that  if  they  do  make  them  known,  that  still  God  will 
not  gratify  them,  in  proper  cases?  And  if. the  saints  in  glory 
love  us,  and  aid  us,  in  what  way  can  they  help  us  more  effectu- 
ally than  by  praying  for  us,  as  they  did  while  still  on  earth  ? 
What  sort  of  a  communion  of  saints  is  that  which  is  limited 
alone  to  this  poor  earth  ?  What  would  Christianity  itself  be 
worth  if  it  did  not  look  beyond  the  grave  ?  How  can  the  im- 


b'56  INVOCATION    OF    SAINTS. 

mortal  members  of  such  a  corporation  as  that  of  the  Church, 
ever  cease  to  pray  for  their  brethren,  so  long  as  there  is  one 
left  to  suffer  ? 

If  it  be  true  that  the  saints  in  heaven  love  us,  that  this  love 
is  active  and  efficient,  and  not  merely  passive  and  idle;  and, 
therefore,  that  they  can  and  do  pray  for  us,  surely  it  can  be  no 
wrong  in  us  to  ask  their  prayers,  to  fly  to  their  help  and  assist- 
ance. To  ask  of  our  own  brethren — the  copartners  of  our  joys 
and  sorrows — to  grant  us  a  favor  that  they  love  to  grant,  and 
that  affords  them  pleasure  to  perform,  cannot  be  justly  held  to 
be  erroneous.  It  would  be  a  strange  philosophy,  and  a  still 
more  singular  theology,  that  would  make  it  a  crime  to  ask  of  a 
brother  that  which  he  had  the  power  and  the  disposition  to  give ; 
and  which,  in  itself,  was  "  good  and  profitable  "  to  us,  and  no 
.loss  to  him. 

In  fact,  the  objection  to  the  invocation  of  saints,  when  calm- 
ly and  thoroughly  considered,  resolves  itself,  at  last,  into  an  ob- 
jection against  the  duty  and  utility  of  all  prayer.  For  it  would 
seem  to  be  clear,  that  if  we  can  pray  for  ourselves  we  can  pray 
for  others  ;  that  if  our  prayers  can  be  effectual  in  the  one  case, 
they  can  in  the  other ;  that  if  we  can  pray  for  our  brethren 
while  we  are  in  this  state  of  being,  we  can  still  do  so  in  the  next ; 
that  if  we  can,  we  must  do  so,  unless  we  cease  to  love  our  breth- 
ren ;  that  God  must  hear  our  prayers,  as  well  in  the  one  state 
as  in  the  other ;  that  if  we  can  ask  the  prayers  of  our  brethren 
present  with  us,  we  can,  upon  the  same  principle,  ask  the  pray- 
ers of  those  who  have  gone  before  us.  And  the  only  consistent 
ground  upon  which  the  invocation  of  saints  can  be  denied,  is,  in 
substance  and  effect,  to  deny  the  duty  and  efficacy  of  all  prayer. 

But  it  is  insisted  by  most  Protestant  writers,  as  it  was  by 
the  Bishop  of  Durham,  as  quoted  in  Milner's  End  of  Contro- 
versy, that  "  it  is  blasphemy  to  ascribe  to  angels  and  saints,  by 
praying  to  them,  the  divine  attribute  of  universal  presence." 

But  is  it  true  that,  because  the  saints  can  know  that  we  in- 
voke their  prayers,  they  must  possess  the  "  divine  attribute  of 
universal  presence  "  ?  How  do  the  saints  know  that  a  sinner 
on  earth  does  penance?  Or  do  they  rejoice  without  this  knowl- 
edge ?  And  if  they  can  and  do  know  this  fact,  upon  what  sem- 
blance of  reason  can  we  say  that  they  cannot  know  when  their 


INVOCATION    OF    SAINTS.  657 

brethren  invoke  their  prayers  ?  Is  not  the  one  fact  as  easily 
known  to  them  as  the  other  ?  The  fact  is  certain  that  there  is 
joy  in  heaven  over  one  sinner  doing  penance.  The  fact  is  also 
certain  that  the  guardian  angels  spoken  of  by  our  Lord  "  al- 
ways behold  the  face  of  the  Father,"  and  that  those  angels  do 
know  when  we  offend  against  those  little  ones  placed  under 
their  charge.  God  is  able,  instantaneously,  to  reveal  to  the 
saints  in  glory  every  fact  that  occurs  on  earth.  Unless  we  deny 
the  existence  of  this  Almighty  power,  we  must  concede  the 
entire  futility  of  this  objection. 

It  was  objected  by  Bishop  Porteus,  as  it  is  still  by  many 
Protestant  writers,  although  the  objection  has  been  abandoned 
by  others,  that  this  doctrine  is  inconsistent  with  the  sole  media- 
torial power  of  Christ.  St.  Paul  says  :  "  There  is  one  Mediator 
between  God  and  men,  the  man  Christ  Jesus."  (1  Tim.  ii.  5.) 

A  mediator  must  always  be  the  equal  of  both  the  parties  be- 
tween whom  he  interposes.  One  sovereign  independent  state 
can  interpose  as  a  mediator  between  other  sovereign  independ- 
ent states;  but  individuals,  as  such,  however  distinguished, 
would  never  be  permitted  by  sovereign  states  to  mediate  be- 
tween them,  because  not  their  equals.  When  the  chief  executive 
officer  of  a  nation  interposes  as  a  mediator,  he  only  does  so 
in  his  capacity  as  representative  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  en- 
tire nation,  and  is,  in  fact,  but  the  organ  through  whom  the  na- 
tion speaks.  For  this  reason  it  was  necessary  that  Christ  should 
be  both  God  and  man,  that  He  might  be  the  mediator  between 
two  of  His  equals.  Whatever  is  said  by  a  mediator  is  addressed 
by  him  to  both  the  parties,  and  as  the  equal  and  friend  of  both. 

But  the  position  of  the  saint  who  prays  for  his  brethren,  is 
totally  different  from  that  of  a  mediator.  The  saint  is  only  the 
equal  of  one  of  the  parties,  and  his  prayer  is  solely  addressed  to 
the  other.  He  assumes  not  the  position  of  a  mediator,  but  that 
of  an  inferior  petitioner  for  favors  for  his  own  friend  and  equal. 
The  object  of  a  mediator  is  not  to  ask  favors  from  one  party  to 
the  other  ;  but  to  do  equal  and  exact  justice  to  both  the  parties. 
When  Christ  interposed  between  God  and  men,  He  did  so  a," 
the  equal  and  friend  of  both.  Justice  was  done  to  God,  anu 
the  mercy  displayed  towards  man,  was  shown  by  the  Mediatot 
He  paid  our  debt  to  the  Divine  Justice  by  His  own  sacrifices' 
ot 


658  INVOCATION    OF    SAINTS. 

and  then  gave  us  a  law,  under  which  we  may  cancel  the  debt 
we  owe  to  Him  as  the  friend  who  voluntarily  paid  our  debt  to 
God,  the  Father,  and  thus  restored  us  to  the  state  of  freedom 
from  the  old  debt ;  provided  we  comply  with  the  terms  of  the 
new  law  given  by  this  Mediator. 

But  besides  this,  I  could  not  possibly  perceive  how  such  an 
objection  could  be  valid  ;  for  the  plain  reason,  that  if  the  prayer 
of  a  saint  in  glory  was  inconsistent  with  the  mediatorial  power 
of  Christ,  the  prayer  of  the  same  saint,  while  on  earth,  must  be 
equally  so.  The  interposition  was  the  same  precisely,  and  for 
the  same  purpose,  and  by  the  same  inferior.  Why,  then,  the 
mere  change  of  state  of  the  petitioner  himself  should  make  his 
petition  assume  the  form  of  a  mediation,  it  was  most  difficult  to 
understand.  Why  precisely  the  same  thing,  done  by  the  same 
saint,  could  be  a  virtue  in  one  instance,  and  a  sin  in  the  other,  I 
could  never  perceive. 

"  It  requires  optics  mighty  keen,  I  ween, 
To  see  a  thing  that  never  can  be  seen." 

The  charge  of  idolatry  which  has  often  been  recklessly  made 
by  some  Protestant  writers,  but  which  has  been  abandoned  by 
the  more  candid  Protestant  controvertists,  is  one  requiring  very 
little  notice.  The  charge  is  certainly  a  very  grave  one ;  and 
those  who  make  it,  in  view  of  the  awful  responsibility  they  as- 
sume, should  be  very  certain  they  are  in  the  right.  It  is  an 
extreme  charge,  which  is  at  once  confuted  by  a  simple  statement 
of  the  Catholic  theory. 

This  charge  is  not  modern,  but  was  originally  made  by  the 
unbelieving  and  persecuting  Jews  in  the  second  century,  from 
whom  it  has  been  borrowed. 

In  the  Epistle  of  the  Church  of  Smyrna  to  the  Church  at 
Philomelium,  written  about  the  year  169,  and  giving  an  account 
of  the  glorious  martyrdom  of  the  holy  Polycarp,  the  disciple  of 
St.  John,  the  Evangelist,  and  the  intimate  friend  of  St.  Ignatius, 
the  martyred  Bishop  of  Antioch,  we  find  this  statement : 

"  Bur  the  envious  and  wicked  Adversary  of  the  generation 
of  tne  i^hteous,  when  he  saw  the  mightiness  of  his  testimony, 
aivH  V?  rlameless  conversation  from  the  first,  and  how  that  he 
was  now  crowned  with  the  crown  of  immortality,  and  had  borne 


INVOCATION    OF    SAINTS.  659 

away  a  prize  that  could  not  be  spoken  against,  contrived  that 
his  poor  body  might  not  be  obtained  by  us,  though  many  much 
desired  to  secure  it,  and  to  communicate  over  his  holy  remains. 
For  some  suggested  to  Nicetus,  the  father  of  Herod,  and 
brother  to  Alee,  that  he  should  persuade  the  governor  not  to 
give  up  his  body,  '  lestj  said  he,  '  they  leave  the  crucified  and 
take  to  worshipping  this  fellow?  And  these  things  they  said, 
as  instigated  and  supported  by  the  Jews,  who  even  watched  us 
when  some  of  us  were  about  to  take  his  body  from  the  fire,  for 
they  little  knew  how  impossible  it  was  for  us  either  to  forsake 
the  worship  of  Christ,  who  suffered  for  the  salvation  of  the 
whole  world  of  them  that  be  saved,  or  to  pay  worship  to  any 
other.  For  to  him  truly  we  pay  adoration,  for  as  much  as  He 
was  the  Son  of  God ;  but  the  martyrs,  as  the  disciples  and  fol- 
lowers of  the  Lord,  we  revere  as  they  deserve,  for  their  incom- 
parable loyalty  to  their  King  and  Master,  praying  that  we  may 
be  made  their  patrons  and  their  fellow-disciples." 

The  whole  Epistle  may  be  found  in  the  first  volume  of  the 
Oxford  Tracts,  from  which  this  extract  is  taken. 

It  will  be  seen  that  this  extract  gives  a  very  clear  statement 
of  that  inferior  respect  the  Catholic  gives  the  saints  for  their 
"  loyalty  to  their  King  and  Master,"  while  he  gives  the  supreme 
honor  to  Christ.  The  same  false  charge  was  made  by  Faustus, 
as  St.  Augustin  states  : 

"  That  Faustus  hence  also  slanders  us,  because  we  honor  the 
places  dedicated  to  the  martyrs,  saying  that  herein  we  have 
made  an  exchange  of  idols,  does  not  so  much  move  me  to  reply 
to  this  slander,  as  to  show  that  this  Faustus,  in  his  eagerness  to 
slander,  has  chosen  to  wander  even  out  of  the  follies  of  Mani- 
chseus  himself,"  &c.  (T.  viii,  lib.  xx.,  n.  21.  Contra  Faustum.) 

The  Catholic  doctrine  may  have  been  misunderstood,  in 
some  instances,  by  not  observing  that  the  word  worship  has 
several  different  meanings.  Tn  King  James'  translation  it  is 
used  in  different  senses.  Thus  in  Luke  xiv.  10,  it  is  used  to 
express  the  lowest  degree  of  respect.  When  used  by  Catholic 
writers  in  reference  to  the  honor  due  to  the  saints  and  their 
relics,  it  is  used  in  its  subordinate  sense.  Worship,  like  love, 
may  be  given  to  different  objects,  in  different  degrees.  When 
the  lawyer  asked  Christ  which  was  the  greatest  commandment, 


660  THE   BLESSED   VIRGIN   MARY. 

He  answered  :  "  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy 
heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy  mind."  By  this 
our  Lord  did  not  mean  to  exclude  all  love  of  others,  but  only 
required  for  God  our  supreme  love  ;  for  He  immediately  adds  • 
"  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself."  (Matt.  xxii.  35-9.) 
As  God  requires  our  supreme  love,  so  He  requires  our  supreme 
worship ;  and  as  He  does  not  prohibit  us  from  loving  others, 
while  we  love  Him  supremely,  so  He  does  not  inhibit  that  in- 
ferior respect  we  pay  to  His  saints,  while  we  give  to  Him,  and 
to  Him  only,  the  supreme  homage  of  our  souls.  The  two  are 
entirely  compatible  with  each  other  ;  and  no  more  conflict, 
than  do  the  powers  of  a  subordinate  with  those  of  his  superior. 
And  those  who  confuse  the  two,  and  refuse  to  distinguish  be- 
tween them,  and  upon  that  false  basis  say,  that  God  is  injured 
by  this  subordinate  respect  paid  to  His  holy  servants,  simply 
because  they  were  such,  are  about  as  much  mistaken  as  the  man 
who  abandoned  his  faithful  wife  for  the  sole  reason  that  she 
loved  her  mother.  He  could  not  see  how  his  wife  could  love 
her  mother  and  at  the  same  time  love  him. 

§  2.   The  Blessed  Virgin  Mary. 
"  Virgin  and  mother  of  our  dear  Redeemer ! 
All  hearts  are  touched  and  softened  at  her  name  ; 
Alike  the  bandit  with  the  bloody  hand, 
The  priest,  the  prince,  the  scholar  and  the  peasant, 
The  man  of  deeds,  the  visionary  dreamer, 
Pay  homage  to  her  as  one  ever-present  *  *  *  * 
So  mild,  so  merciful,  so  strong,  so  good, 
So  patient,  peaceful,  loyal,  loving,  pure, 
This  were  enough  to  prove  it  higher  and  truer 
Than  all  the  creeds  the  world  had  known  before." — LONOFEIXOW. 

In  the  Letters  Apostolic,  issued  by  Pope  Pius  the  Ninth,  in 
December,  1854,  making  a  dogmatic  definition  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  immaculate  conception  of  the  Blessed  Virgin  Mary,  and 
which  has  given  so  much  satisfaction  to  the  entire  Catholic 
world,  it  is  declared  :  "  that  the  doctrine  which  holds  that  the 
Blessed  Virgin  Mary,  at  the  first  instant  of  her  conception,  by 
A  singular  privilege  and  grace  of  the  Omnipotent  God,  in  virtue 
of  the  merits  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Saviour  of  mankind,  was  pre- 
served free  from  all  stain  of  original  sin,  has  been  i sealed  by 


THE   BLESSED    VIRGIN    MARY.  661 

God,  and  therefore  should  firmly  and  constantly  be  believed  by 
all  the  faithful." 

The  hasty  objection  that  this  doctrine  did  not  exist  in  the 
Church  until  it  was  defined,  is  thus  met  by  Dr.  Bryant,  in  hi8 
late  beautiful  work  upon  the  Immaculate  Conception  : 

"  There  be  some,  who  absurdly  affirm  of  any  given  doctrine, 
that  it  did  not  exist  before  such  and  such  a  period,  the  date  at 
which  it  was  solemnly  defined.  The  fallacy  of  such  an  assertion 
is  sufficiently  exposed  by  the  following.  The  Canon  of  the 
Sacred  Scriptures  was  not  defined  until  the  time  of  the  Council 
of  Hippo  in  the  fourth  century.  Therefore,  according  to  these 
men,  the  Sacred  Scriptures  did  not  until  then  exist.  Apply  this 
rule  fco  the  doctrine  of  the  Immaculate  Conception,  and  to  every 
other,  and  words  need  not  be  multiplied  or  wasted  in  vindica- 
tion of  the  Church  in  every  case."  (Preface,  xiv.) 

I  have  already  substantially  noticed  this  and  similar  objec- 
tions, and  given  the  reasons  why,  in  the  very  nature  of  a  system 
of  law,  there  must  be  definitions  from  time  to  time.  This  must 
be  so,  or  we  must  conclude  that  there  is  no  judicial  power  in 
the  Church,  and  practically  no  Church.  The  Council  of  Jerusa- 
lem is  a  clear  example.  Gentiles  had  been  admitted  into  the 
Church  for  some  years  without  circumcision.  The  Council  sim- 
ply determined  a  judicial  question ;  namely:  Whether  the  old 
law,  in  this  respect,  was  still  obligatory.  It  is  true,  the  Coun- 
cil, when  in  session,  went  beyond  this  single  question,  and 
adopted  certain  regulations  in  reference  to  other  matters.  But 
it  will  be  observed,  that  these  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  ne- 
cessity of  circumcision.  The  Council  first  distinctly  negatived 
that  proposition,  and  then  made  the  regulations  found  in  the 
decree.  Now,  could  any  one  say  that  the  doctrine  that  circum- 
cision was  not  necessary,  did  not  exist  in  the  Church  until  the 
Council  authoritatively  determined  the  question  ?  Every  one 
must  see  that  the  law  was  the  same  before  as  after  the  decision, 
but  only  that  it  had  not  been  so  judicially  declared.* 

*  To  some  it  may  seem  erroneous  that  the  Church  should  require  all  her 
children  to  believe  a  tenet,  when  once  defined,  while  they  were  permitted  to  deny  it 
Conditionally  before  the  definition  was  made.  But  this  plausible  objection  will  be 
found  without  any  weight  when  fairly  and  justly  considered.  St.  Paul  told  Titus 
to  reject  a  heretic  after  the  first  and  second  admonition.  It  is  the  condemned 


662  THE    BLESSED    VIRGIN    MARY. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Immaculate  Conception  is  the  result 
which  necessarily  flows  from  facts  and  principles  plainly  laid 
down  in  Scripture.  It  is  but  a  true  judicial  extension  of  those 
principles. 

It  is  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  for  us  to  form  any  adequate 
conception  of  the  greatness  of  the  Incarnation  of  our  Lord, — 
that  awful  and  mysterious  union  of  the  human  and  divine.  And 
yet,  if  that  doctrine  be  not  true,  there  is  no  Christianity.  It 
does  not  fall  within  the  scope  of  this  work  to  discuss  the  great 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  But  I  will  say  that  the  Scripture  proofs, 
when  taken  and  considered  together,  and  when  the  necessary 
logical  results  are  drawn  from  them,  do  conclusively  establish  it 
in  my  view.  The  contrary  doctrine  is  wholly  incompatible  with 
clearly  stated  facts.  When  the  people  wished  to  offer  saerifice 
to  Paul  and  Barnabas,  (an  act  of  supreme  worship,)  they  rent 
their  clothes  in  order  adequately  to  express  their  extreme  oppo- 
sition. So,  when  Herod  permitted  himself  to  be  regarded  as  a 
God,  he  was  signally  punished  for  the  impious  act.  But  when 
the  apostle  Thomas  cried  -out,  in  the  full  fervor  of  faith,  "  My 
Lord  and  my  God,"  he  was  not  rebuked  by  Christ.  This  su- 
preme homage  was  received  without  objection ;  and  it  must  have 
been  deserved. 

When  our  first  parents  had  fallen,  the  Lord  declared  that 
the  seed  of  the  woman  should  bruise  the  serpent's  head.  Eve, 
by  whose  act  original  sin  was  introduced,  was  created  sinless, 

heretic  who  is  outside  the  Church.  Those  teachers  who  insisted  upon  the  neces- 
sity of  circumcision,  taught  that  which  was,  in  itself,  heresy.  It  was  heresy, 
because  it  assumed,  as  essential  to  salvation,  that  which  the  Divine  Legislator 
Himself  did  not  require.  This  improper  extension  of  the  principles  of  the  code 
was  a  violation  of  the  will  of  the  Lawmaker.  But  those  who  did  this  at  tho 
same  time  submitted  themselves  to  the  lawful  agents  of  Christ  for  correction. 
They  thus  conceded  a  supreme  principle  of  government  that  must  lead  to  a  cor 
rect  conclusion  sooner  or  later.  When  the  question  was  raised  at  Antioch,  the 
friends  of  circumcision  were  not  at  once  expelled  from  the  Church,  for  the  rea- 
son that  they  submitted  themselves  to  her  decision.  Their  belief  was  condition- 
al, not  final.  It  was  subordinate,  not  supreme.  It  only  assumed  that  inferior 
form.  Those  who  held  it  did  not  say,  "  We  will  hold  this  in  defiance  of.  the 
i  hurch."  Suppose  one  or  more  of  them  had  died  (and  it  is  almost  certain  that 
some  who  believed  with  them  did  die)  before  the  decision  of  the  Council,  does 
any  one  believe  thev  would  have  been  lost  ? 


THE    BLESSED   VIRGIN    MARY.  663 

and  it  was  fit,  in  the  nature  c?  God's  system  of  redemption,  that 
Mary,  the  second  Eve,  should  also  be  created  sinless.  John  the 
Baptist  was  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  even  from  his  mother's 
womb ;  and  Jeremias,  the  plaintive  prophet,  was  sanctified  be- 
fore he  was  born.  (Luke  i. ;  Jer.  i.  5.)  Whenever  God  created 
an  agent  to  accomplish  some  great  purpose,  He  always  bestowed 
upon  the  person  the  necessary  grace  and  power.  And  these 
were  always  duly  proportioned  to  the  magnitude  of  the  end  to 
be  attained.  When,  therefore,  Infinite  Purity  was  about  to  be 
united  with  the  human,  and  to  choose  for  Himself  a  mother,  He 
would  necessarily  make  a  fit  habitation  for  Himself.  That  He 
had  the  power,  no  one  will  question.  "  Who,"  asks  St.  Cyril, 
"  hath  ever  heard  of  an  architect  building  for  himself  a  house, 
and  yielding  the  occupancy  and  possession  of  it  to  his  prime 
enemy  ?  "  And  it  has  been  well  said  by  a  learned  writer : 

"  It  is  not  permitted  to  other  children  to  select  a  mother 
according  to  their  good  pleasure  ;  but  if  this  were  ever  granted 
to  any  one,  who  would  choose  a  slave  for  his  mother,  when  he 
might  have  a  queen  ?  Who  a  peasant,  when  he  might  have  a 
noble  ?  Who  an  enemy  of  God,  when  he  might  have  a  friend 
of  God  ?  If,  then,  the  Son  of  God  alone  could  select  a  mother, 
according  to  His  pleasure,  it  must  be  considered  as  certain  that 
He  would  choose  one  befitting  a  God." 

St.  Bernard  expresses  the  same  sentiment  when  he  says : 
"  The  Creator  of  men,  to  be  born  of  man,  must  choose  such  a 
mother  for  Himself  as  He  knew  to  be  most  fit."  And  it  was 
well  said  by  an  ancient  Heathen  writer :  "  Whenever  you  intro- 
duce a  God,  let  him  act  as  a  God."  *  And  the  eloquent  Bryant 
very  appropriately  asks :  "  Could  it  be  otherwise,  then,  that  a 
pure  and  holy  God  would  choose  other  than  a  pure  and  holy 

*  I  have  been  often  struck,  in  reading  the  New  Testament,  with  the  deeply 
significant  fact,  that  there  is  no  express  eulogy  pronounced  upon  any  of  the  per- 
sons mentioned,  not  even  upon  Christ  Himself.  We  are  not  told  any  thing  of  the 
personal  appearance  of  Christ,  or  of  His  apostles.  No  attempt  is  made  to  flatter 
personal  pride.  No  desire  is  anywhere  evinced  to  elevate  mere  individuals. 
The  sacred  writers  seem  to  be  wholly  absorbed  with  the  sublime  subject  they 
treat.  They  forgot  to  give  mere  personal  incidents.  Would  this  have  been  sc 
in  a  forged  narrative  ?  Certainly  the  part  assigned  to  each  of  the  actors  was  ii 
Btrict  accordance  with  the  character  assumed 


664  THE   BLESSED    VIRGIN   MART. 

mother  ?  He  knew  not  sin  Himself,  and  in  order  to  take  of 
her  flesh,  He  must  have  created  her  without  sin  also."  (The 
Immaculate  Conception  a  Dogma,  63.) 

If  the  Blessed  Virgin  was  not  created  without  the  stain  of 
original  sin,  then,  during  a  portion  of  her  existence,  she  was  the 
slave  of  sin,  and  a  subject  of  the  Evil  Spirit,  and  unfit  to  be  the 
mother  of  our  Lord.  As  the  learned  author  from  whom  I  last 
quoted  forcibly  remarks:  "To  have  united  Himself  to  that 
which  had  been  thus  polluted,  would  have  been  a  violation  of 
His  infinite  sanctity :  it  would  have  been  a  union  of  Himself 
with  that  which  He  abhors — a  body  contaminated  with  sin ; 
and  it  would  have  been  an  abnegation  of  Himself.  (Ib.  47.) 

When  the  angel  Gabriel  appeared  to  Mary,  he  said  :  "  Hail 
full  of  grace,"  according  to  the  Douay  Bible  ;  and  u  Hail  thou 
that  art  highly  favored,"  as  the  translation  of  King  James 
has  it. 

There  are  many  instances  given  in  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments, where  angels  appeared  to  men ;  but  this  is  the  only  case 
in  which  one  of  those  blessed  spirits  ever  saluted  a  human  being 
in  this  form.  This  is  a  deeply  significant  fact.  When  Christ 
was  arrayed  in  the  purple  rebe,  the  soldiers  said  to  Him  in 
mockery :  "  Hail  King  of  the  Jews."  After  the  resurrection 
of  our  Lord,  He  saluted  the  occasion  by  the  expression  u  All 
hail."  But  there  is  no  instance  mentioned  in  Scripture  where 
the  form  of  salutation  used  by  Gabriel  was  ever  employed  by  a 
superior  when  addressing  an  inferior.  When  the  same  angel 
appeared  to  Zacharias,  he  simply  called  him  by  his  name.  The 
salutation  hail  was  a  form  employed  by  an  inferior  when  ad- 
dressing a  superior.  And  this  is  the  reason  why  that  lowly 
maid — the  humblest  of  the  humble — "  was  troubled  at  his  say- 
ing, and  cast  in  her  mind  what  manner  of  salutation  this  should 
be."  Observe  that  she  was  affected  by  the  manner  of  the  salu- 
tation. The  angel  had  not  then  announced  the  object  of  his 
visit.  Her  perfect  humility  was  shocked,  because  an  angel  from 
heaven  had  addressed  her  in  that  manner.* 

*  It  is  manifest,  from  the  simple  facts  stated  by  St.  Luke,  that  Mary  was 
determined  to  preserve  her  virginity ;  and  that  when  she  asked  the  question, 
"  How  shall  this  be  ?  "  she  did  not  doubt,  hut  siuiply  inquired  as  to  the  manner 
in  which  the  promise  should  be  fulfilled.  When  Zacharias  asked  the  question, 


T1IE   BLESSED   VIRGIN    MARY.  665 

I£  then,  the  Blessed  Virgin  was  superior  to  the  angel  sent 
to  her,  is  it  not  certain  that  she  must  have  been  sinless  at  every 
period  of  her  existence  ? 

The  objection  that  Mary  could  not  have  been  sinless  in  her 
conception,  because  the  Apostle  Paul  says  in  Adam  all  die,  is 
not  applicable  to  her  case,  for  the  reason,  that  she  was  one  of 
the  instruments  employed  by  God  in  His  great  plan  of  redemp- 
tion— that  she  was  the  blessed  among  wonien-~-a,ud.  her  case  was 
an  exception  to  the  general  rule.  It  is  conceded  by  all  that 
Christ  was  perfect  man,  and  by  those  who  believe  in  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity,  that  He  was  also  perfect  God ;  and  yet  it 
is  admitted  that  He  was  free  from  original  sin.  He  could  be 
perfect  man  without  bearing  the  taint  of  original  transgression. 
So  could  Mary,  through  the  grace  of  God. 

But  it  has  been  said  by  some  Protestant  writers,  and  is  a 
very  common  objection  to  be  found  in  sermons,  that  our  Lord 
treated  His  mother  harshly,  especially  at  the  wedding  in  Cana 

"  Whereby  shall  I  know  this  ?  "  he  was  punished  for  his  nnbelief.  St.  Ambrose 
asks  :  "  How  would  it  have  happened  that  Zachary  should  be  struck  dumb  foi 
his  unbelief,  and  Mary,  though  not  believing,  should  be  honored  by  the  infusion 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  ?  Her  prerogative  as  mother,  which  doubtless  deserved  pecu- 
liar deference,  cannot  explain  this  ;  as  her  prerogative  was  greater,  so  must  she 
have  been  endowed  with  greater  faith.  She  did  not  doubt  of  the  event,  but  only 
inquired  into  the  manner  of  its  accomplishment." 

If  we  pause  at  the  point  where  Mary  asked  the  question,  and  consider  wfiat 
had  been,  up  to  that  precise  period,  made  known  to  her,  we  shall  see  that  the 
event  predicted  by  the  angel  was  then  future — that  no  definite  time  had  then 
been  fixed  for  its  accomplishment — and  that  nothing  had  then  been  stated  by 
the  heavenly  messenger  to  show  that  her  Son  was  to  be  divine.  If  we  say  that 
Mary  was  to  be  married  to  Joseph  and  not  to  remain  chaste,  how  could  she  have 
asked  such  a  question  ?  If  she  was  not  to  remain  a  virgin  after  her  marriage, 
then  nothing  was  more  natural  than  that  she  should  have  a  son.  What  sense 
was  there,  under  this  theory,  in  her  question  ?  The  only  hypothesis  upon  which 
the  Scripture  narrative  can  be  made  consistent  with  itself  is,  that  Mary  and 
Joseph  were  to  remain  chaste — that  as  barrenness  was  a  great  reproach  among 
the  Jews,  the  humility  of  Mary  induced  her  to  make  a  vow  of  chastity — that 
Joseph,  being  a  just  man,  consented  to  her  views — and  that  she  was  willing  to 
marry  him  with  this  understanding  in  obedience  to  the  wish  of  her  parents. 
This  was  the  opinion  of  St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  (Orat.  in  Nat.  Christi,)  and  of  the 
great  St.  Augustine.  (De  Virg.  L  iv.)  See  note  to  Bishop  Kendrick's  transla- 
tion of  the  Four  Gospels. 


(JG6  THE   BLESSED   VIRGIN    MARY. 

of  Galilee.      (John  ii.)      Before  the  truth  of  such  a    charge 
should  be  believed,  it  should  very  plainly  appear. 

It  is  true,  that  such  an  inference  might  be  drawn  from  a 
hasty  examination  of  the  language  of  our  Lord  on  that  occa- 
sion. But  when  we  observe  His  general  mode  of  addressing 
His  mother,  we  can  see  that  it  was  usual  with  Him  to  call  her 
simply,  woman.  This  expression  He  used  when  hanging  on  the 
cross.  He  said  to  her,  "  Woman,  behold  thy  son."  Bloom- 
field,  the  distinguished  Protestant  commentator,  very  justly 
says : 

"  This  word  was  a  form  of5  address  which  implied  nothing 
of  disrespect,  and  was  employed  by  our  Lord  on  the  most  affect- 
ing of  all  occasions,  and  when  He  especially  evinced  His  exqui- 
site sympathy  and  tender  regard  for  this  very  parent.  This 
being  the  case,  it  is  scarcely  necessary  to  advert  to  the  classical 
authorities  which  have  been  produced,  from  Homer  to  Dio  Cas- 
sius,  in  proof  of  the  above  position."  (Cited  in  note  to  Ken- 
drick's  translation.) 

The  great  St.  Augustin  gives  one  of  the  true  meanings : 
"  The  mother  demanded  a  miracle ;  but  He,  in  divine  opera- 
tions, does  not  recognize  maternal  authority,  and  says,  as  it 
were,  Thou  didst  not  bring  forth  my  wonder-working  power : 
thou  art  not  the  mother  of  my  divinity."  When  it  is  remem- 
bered that  our  Lord  was  subject  to  His  parents,  and  that  His 
time  had  not  then  arrived,  we  can  see  that  He  had  two  objects 
to  accomplish  by  what  He  said  :  1.  By  the  question  He  asked, 
He  intended  to  inform  His  mother  that  He  could  not  be  sub- 
ject to  her  in  divine  things.  2.  By  the  statement,  "  Mine  hour 
is  not  yet  come,"  He  intended  to  let  her  know  that  He  would 
perform  the  miracle,  even  before  His  time,  at  her  request.  The 
purpose  of  our  Lord  was  to  place  Himself  right  before  His 
mother,  so  that  she  would  know  the  true  ground  upon  which 
He  performed  the  miracle  before  His  time  had  come.  The 
very  fact  that  she  at  once  said  to  the  servants,  "  Whatsoever 
he  saith  unto  you,  do  it,"  shows  conclusively  that  she  under- 
stood Him  to  promise  a  compliance  with  her  wish.  So  far  from 
the  conduct  and  language  of  Christ  on  this  occasion,  when  taken 
and  considered  together,  showing  any  harsh  treatment  of  his 
mother,  they  show  precisely  the  contrary.  It  would  have  been 


THE   BLESSED    VIRGIN    MARY.  667 

very  strange  that  our  Lord  should  have  been  harsh  to  His 
mother.  His  conduct  towards  the  humble  Syrophonician  wo- 
man might  be  tortured,  by  misconstruction,  into  unkindness. 

It  only  remains  to  show  what  was  the  doctrine  of  the  An- 
cient Church  upon  this  subject.  I  find  the  authorities  so  well 
stated  in  the  work  of  Dr.  Bryant,  that  I  shall  avail  myself  of 
his  labors,  and  select  such  as  my  limits  will  justify.  But  before 
doing  so,  it  may  be  useful  to  remark  that  all  writers  have  the 
right  to  use  words  and  phrases  in  other  than  ordinary  senses, 
when  they  clearly  specify  the  sense  in  which  they  are  used.  It 
is  also  but  just  that  a  fair  allowance  must  be  made  for  the  ar- 
dent language  of  poetry  and  devotion.  To  find  a  clear  and 
exact  definition  of  a  doctrine,  we  must,  of  course,  refer  to  works 
which  expressly  speak  of  them  as  such. 

The  expression,  "  Mother  of  God,"  as  applied  to  the  Blessed 
Virgin  by  Catholic  writers,  and  especially  by  the  Ancient  Fa- 
thers, as  will  be  seen,  and  as  found  in  Catholic  books  of  devotion, 
does  not  mean  what  many  Protestants  may  suppose.  As  we 
have  just  seen  by  the  extract  from  St.  Augustin,  the  Catholic 
Church  does  not  hold  that  our  Lord  derived  His  divine  nature, 
but  only  His  flesh,  from  His  mother.  In  the  Christian  theory, 
the  soul  of  each  human  being  is  created  by  God  from  nothing, 
and  is  united  to  the  body  before  birth ;  and  yet  the  mother  is 
said  to  be  the  mother  of  the  compound  being  called  man,  al- 
though he  derived  but  one  part  of  his  being  from  his  parents. 
It  is  the  Catholic  faith,  and,  I  believe,  the  faith  of  all  Trinita- 
rians, that  while  our  Lord  did  not  derive  His  divinity  from  His 
mother,  the  two  natures,  human  and  divine,  were  united  in 
Him  before  His  birth.  And  this  is  all  that  is  meant  when  we 
say  that  Mary  was  the  mother  of  God.  It  is  not  intended  to 
convey  the  idea,  by  this  expression,  that  God  did  not  exist 
prior  to,  and  independent  of  her.  He  was  her  Creator — she, 
His  creature.  We  find  the  language  of  Scripture,  when  put  to- 
gether, about  as  strong  as  the  expression  referred  to.  For  ex- 
ample, St.  John  says  the  Word  was  God — that  the  Word  was 
made  flesh  and  dwelt  among  us — that  Jesus  Christ  was  the 
Word — and  that  Mary  was  His  mother.  It  is  very  true,  that 
this  is  explained  in  other  passages.  So  is  the  expression, 
"  Mother  of  God,"  as  used  by  Catholics. 


668  THE   BLESSED   VIRGIN    MAKY. 

The  ancient  Liturgies,  being  public  and  established  forms  of 
divine  worship,  constitute  satisfactory  evidence  of  the  faith  of 
the  early  Church  in  regard  to  the  Blessed  Virgin. 

1.  The  Liturgy  of  St.  James  the  Apostle,  as  it  is  called,  is 
certainly  very  ancient,  if  it  was  not   composed  by  him.     This 
Liturgy  is  quoted  by  St.   Cyril,  of  Jerusalem,  in  A.  D.   347. 
This  is  the  one  in  most  common  use   among  the  Orientals.     In 
^his  the  Blessed  Virgin  is  called   "  Most  holy,  most  glorious, 
immaculate  Mother  of  God,  and  ever  Virgin."     It  also  adds 
the  very  marked  expression,   "In  every  respect    out   of  the 
range  of  sinful  men." 

2.  In  the  Liturgy  of  St.  Mark  the  Evangelist :  "  Most  holy, 
immaculate,  and  blessed  Mother  of  God,  and  ever  Virgin  Mary." 

3.  In  that  of  St.  John  Chrysostom :  "  In  every  part  wholly, 
altogether  untainted." 

4.  In  that  of  St.  Basil :  "  Chiefly  with  the  most  holy,  spot- 
less, above  all  blessed,  our  glorious  Lady,  Mother  of  God,  and 
ever  Virgin  Mary." 

5.  In  the  Alexandrian:  "But  chiefly  of  our  most  holy,  most 
glorious,  immaculate,  most  blessed  Lady,  Mother  of  God,  and 
ever  Virgin  Mary." 

6.  In  the  Roman  Liturgy  of  undoubted  antiquity :  "  Most 
glorious,  most  holy,  immaculate  Mother  of  God,  and  ever  Vir- 
gin Mary." 

In  reference  to  the  duty  of  following  the  traditions  of  the 
apostles,  St.  Hippolytus  wrote :  "  These  testimonies  are  suffi- 
cient for  believers  who  study  truth  ;  as  to  unbelievers,  they  be- 
lieve no  one.  Let  us,  therefore,  blessed  brethren,  believe  ac- 
cording to  the  traditions  of  the  apostles."  (Contra  Haeres. 
Noet.,  n.  7.) 

"  There  is  a  letter  extant,"  says  Dr.  Bryant,  "  known  to  the 
priests  and  deacons  of  Achia,  which  contains  an  account  of  the 
martyrdom  of  the  illustrious  Apostle  St.  Andrew,  and  a  dis- 
course which  he  pronounced  in  presence  of  the  proconsul  Egeus, 
just  previous  to  his  suffering.  In  this  discourse  the  holy  apostle 
speaks  thus :  '  And,  moreover,  as  the  first  man  was  created  from 
immaculate  earth,  it  was  necessary  that  from  an  Immaculate 
Virgin  should  be  born  a  perfect  man,  namely,  the  Son  of  God.' 
This  antistrophy,  or  reciprocal  conversion  of  the  terms  immacu- 


THE   BLE8SED    VIRGIN    MART.  669 

late  earth  and  Immaculate  Virgin,  exhibits  the  apostle  as  de- 
claring Mary  to  be  as  immaculate  in  her  conception  as  was 
Adam  when  he  issued  perfect  from  the  hand  of  his  Maker. 
The  most  ardent  friend  of  the  Immaculate  Conception  could 
wish  for  no  stronger  testimony  than  this. 

"  This  remarkable  document  was  at  first  regarded  by  some 
with  suspicion,  in  consequence  of  the  Latin  copy  only  being 
known.  But  since  the  Greek  original  has  been  found  in  the 
Bodleian  Library,  and  published  by  Charles  Christian  Woog,  a 
Protestant  writer,  all  doubt  has  ceased.  Baconius  proves  this 
letter  to  be  genuine ;  and  so  does  also  N.  Alexander,  in  his  Ec- 
clesiastical History,  vol.  1.  M.  Edvoy,  Professor  of  History 
and  Antiquities  at  Leipsic,  follows  the  same  opinion  in  some 
learned  dissertations  which  he  published  in  1748-51.  Abdias 
Babilonicus  also  adds  the  weight  of  his  name  to  its  authenticity ; 
and  the  celebrated  Marcelli  has  inserted  it,  as  authentic  and 
true,  in  his  Calendar  of  the  Church  of  Constantinople,  under 
the  date  of  November  30. 

"  St.  Andrew  suffered  martyrdom  in  the  year  96,  and  his  dis- 
course incontestably  proves  that  the  Immaculate  Conception 
was  believed  and  professed  in  the  Apostolic  Age."  (Ib.  77.) 

In  the  second  century,  St.  Justin  Martyr  calls  her  The  Me- 
diatrix between  God  her  divine  son,  and  our  fallen  race ;  and 
St.  Irenseus,  of  the  same  age,  says  of  her :  "  If  Eve  disobeyed 
God,  yet  Mary  was  counselled  to  obey  God ;  that  the  Virgin 
Mary  might  become  the  Advocate  of  the  Virgin  Eve.  And  as 
the  human  race  was  bound  to  death  through  a  virgin,  it  is  saved 
through  a  virgin  ;  the  scales  being  equally  balanced ;  virginal 
disobedience  by  virginal  obedience."  (Advers.  Haeres.,  lib.  v., 
cap.  xix,,  p.  879.) 

In  the  third  century,  St.  Hippolytus  calls  her  "  Holy  and 
Immaculate,"  and  Origen  says :  "  She  has  not  been  tainted  with 
the  breath  of  the  venomous  serpent."  (Horn.  1  De  B.  V.  Ma- 
ria.) And  St.  Anselm  of  the  same  age  says  of  her:  "  God  hath 
preserved  the  Angels  from  sin,  among  the  others  sinning :  hath 
He  not  been  able  to  preserve  the  Mother  pure  from  the  sins  oi 
others  ?  "  (Sermo.  de  Conceptione.)  So  St.  Cyprian  of  the 
same  age  says:  "Neither  did  justice  suffer  that  vessel  of  elec- 
tion to  be  open  to  the  common  inquiries ;  for  being  far  exalted 


670  KELICS    AND    IMAGES. 

above  others,  she  was  a  partaker  of  their  nature,  but  not  of 
their  sin."  (Lib.  1  De  Carne  Christi.) 

In  the  fourth  age,  St.  Ephraim  says :  "  Mary  is  immaculate, 
and  most  remote  from  every  taint  of  sin."  (Tom.  5  ;  Orat.  ad 
Dei  Ge«.)  And  St.  Amphilochius  says:  "Who  created  the 
first  virgin  perfect;  He  Himself  created  the  second  without 
blemish  and  without  sin."  (Orat.  4,  in  S.  Deip.  et  Simeone.) 
So,  Saint  Ambrose  calls  her  "  a  virgin  through  grace,  preserved 
from  every  stain  of  sin,"  (Sermo.  22,  in  Ps.  cxviii.) 

In  the  fifth  age,  St.  Augustin,  in  confuting  the  error  of  Pe- 
lagius,  who  taught  that  the  children  of  baptized  persons  were 
born  free  from  original  sin,  says:  "Except  the  Holy  Virgin 
Mary,  concerning  whom,  for  the  honor  of  the  Lord,  I  wish  to 
entertain  no  question,  when  sin  is  the  subject  of  discussion ; 
since  we  know  that  more  grace  hath  been  given  to  her  to  over- 
come sin  in  every  respect  who  was  worthy  to  conceive  and 
bring  forth  Him  whom  it  behooved  to  have  no  sin."  (Lib.  de 
Natura  et  Gratia,  cap.  23.) 

I  have  passed  over  many  of  the  passages  quoted  by  Dr. 
Bryant,  and  must  refer  to  the  work  itself  for  the  others. 

§  3.  Relics  and  Images. 

In  reference  to  the  relics  of  the  saints,  the  Council  of  Trent 
declared : 

"  That  the  holy  bodies  of  holy  martyrs,  and  of  others  now 
living  with  Christ,  which  were  the  living  members  of  Christ, 
and  the  temple  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  by  him  to  be  raised  up,  and 
glorified,  unto  everlasting  life,  are  to  be  venerated  by  the  faith- 
ful, through  which  many  benefits  are  bestowed  on  men  by  God  ; 
so  that  they  who  affirm  that  veneration  and  honor  are  not  due 
to  the  relics  of  saints,  or  that  such  relics  and  other  sacred  monu- 
ments are  uselessly  honored  by  the  faithful,  and  that  the  places 
dedicated  to  their  memories  are  in  vain  visited  for  the  sake  of 
impetrating  their  aid — are  absolutely  to  be  condemned,  as  the 
church  has  long  since  condemned,  and  now  also  condemns 
them."  (Sess.  xxv.) 

And  in  reference  to  the  pictures  and  images  of  the  saints, 
the  same  Council  decreed  : 

"  That  the  images  of  Christ,  of  the  virgin  mother  of  God, 


RELICS   AND   IMAGES.  671 

and  of  other  saints,  are  to  be  had  and  retained  especially  in 
churches,  and  that  due  honor  and  veneration  are  to  be  shown 
them ;  not  that  it  is  believed  that  any  divinity  or  virtue  is  in- 
herent in  them,  on  account  of  which  they  are  to  be  worshipped, 
or  that  any  thing  is  to  be  asked  of  them,  or  that  trust  is  to  be 
placed  in  images,  as  of  old  was  done  by  the  Gentiles,  who 
placed  their  hope  in  idols;  but  because  the  honor  which  is 
shown  them  is  referred  to  the  prototypes  which  they  represent ; 
so  that  through  the  images  which  we  kiss,  and  before  which 
we  uncover  our  heads,  and  fall  down,  we  may  adore  Christ,  and 
venerate  the  saints,  whose  likeness  they  bear."  (Sess.  xxv.) 

It  is  just  as  natural  for  all  good  men  to  entertain  a  profound 
veneration 

"  For  those  who  greatly  think,  or  bravely  die," 

in  a  good  and  holy  cause,  as  to  love  the  beautiful  cause  itself. 
And  it  is  just  as  natural  to  respect  the  relics  and  images  of 
those  we  love,  as  to  love  the  objects  themselves.  In  fact,  the 
love  of  the  relics  and  images  of  the  great  and  good  is  but  the 
inevitable  result  of  the  love  we  bear  the  objects  to  whom  these 
appertain.  If  the  sincere  believer  loves  any  thing,  it  must  be 
the  sublime  system  of  Christianity  itself;  and  if  he  loves  the 
cause,  he  must  love  those  who  have  done  most  to  advance  it. 
And  if  there  be  in  the  mind  and  heart  of  the  true  believer  any 
an  object  most  worthy  of  his  love,  it  is  the  holy  martyr  for 
the  cause  of  Christ.  And  after  all  the  frivolous  and  unfeeling 
objections  that  have  been,  or  may  yet  be  urged  against  an  im- 
pulse so  natural  and  innocent,  the  human  heart  will  still  tell  us 
that  it  is  just  and  right  in  itself.  The  heart  is  as  often  right  as 
the  head.  The  heart  of  Daniel  Webster,  in  opposition  to  the 
doubts  of  his  head,  assured  him  that  the  glowing  sermon  of 
Christ  on  the  mount  was  not  the  production  of  man  ;  and  happy 
would  he  have  been  had  he  followed  this  holy  impulse  of  his 
heart,  which  was  as  true  as  instinct  itself.  It  is  useless  and 
vain  to  coldly  argue  against  the  simplest  and  sweetest  impulses 
of  the  soul,  as  if  we  wished  to  banish  from  the  heart  all  sympa- 
thy for  the  good  and  great. 

Is  the  love  of  the  humble  and  true  Christian  for  his  breth- 
ren,  a  sin  or  a  virtue  ?     In  that  last  and  most  mournful  discourse 


672  RELICS    AND   IMAGES. 

delivered  by  the  meek  Saviour,  just  before  His  passion,  He 
Raid  to  His  disciples : 

"  A  new  commandment  1  give  unto  you,  That  ye  love  one 
another ;  as  I  have  loved  you,  that  ye  also  love  one  another." 
And  so  important  did  our  Lord  consider  this  new  command- 
ment, that  He  repeated  it  three  several  times,  in  the  same  dis- 
course. (John  xiii.  34;  xv.  12,  17.)  And  St.  James,  in  refer- 
ence to  this  command,  says:  "And  this  is  his  commandment, 
That  we  should  believe  on  the  name  of  his  Son  Jesus  Christ, 
and  love  one  another  as  he  gave  us  commandment."  (James 
iii.  23.)  Should  our  love  cease  the  moment  the  holy  brother 
dies  ?  And  is  this  love  confined  alone  to  those  of  our  own  age  ? 
Are  we  of  this  day  not  to  love  the  apostles  and  other  martyrs 
for  Christ  ?  The  Church  is  but  one  corporation,  and  we  are  all 
members  of  it  and  of  one  another.  We  must,  then,  love  the 
saints  of  all  ages  and  nations.  Would  it  not  be  a  narrow  and 
pitiful  theory  that  would  confine  our  love  alone  to  the  saints  of 
our  own  generation  ? 

And  if  we  are  bound  to  love  the  great  and  noble  champions 
of  the  cross,  are  we  not  bound  to  keep  this  love  ever  "  green  in 
our  souls  "  ?  And  if  so,  are  we  not  allowed  to  use  the  means 
best  adapted  to  that  end  ?  Strange,  if  we  are  not.  The  honors 
paid  to  St.  Paul  and  St.  Peter,  in  their  day,  we  may  certainly 
pay  to  their  memory  now.  And  we  may  surely  use  any  inno- 
cent means  in  doing  this. 

Pictures  and  images  of  Christ,  of  Mary,  of  the  apostles,  and 
of  the  martyrs,  are  intended  simply  to  excite  devotion,  by 
bringing  up  before  the  mind  a  more  concentrated  and  lively 
history  of  the  persons  and  scenes  represented.  Prose,  poetry, 
and  painting,  are  only  signs  or  mediums  of  thought  and  fact. 
These  different  modes  of  representation  have  each  their  peculiar 
advantages.  It  is  by  a  combination  of  them  all  that  the  best 
representation  can  be  had  in  many  cases.  For  this  reason  we 
see  works  jf  art  and  science,  as  well  as  of  biography,  constantly 
illustrated  by  drawings,  plans,  and  pictures.  By  the  use  of 
prose  a  more  exact  and  full  description  can  be  given,  while  that 
of  poetry  is  more  vivid,  and  that  of  painting  more  touching. 
When  we  look  upon  an  image  or  painting  of  the  crucifixion,  it 
at  once  brings  to  our  recollection,  by  the  power  of  the  associa- 


RELICS   AND   IMAGES.  673 

tion  of  ideas,  all  the  remembered  incidents  of  our  Lord's  pas- 
sion. The  word  cross  is  but  a  sign,  and  only  brings  up  the 
same  emotions  as  the  image  or  picture  of  the  same  thing  repre- 
sented. 

In  the  Old  Testament  we  are  told  that  the  dead  man  was 
instantly  restored  to  life  when  he  touched  the  bones  of  the 
prophet.  (2  Kings  xiii.  21.)  So,  we  are  assured  that  miracles 
were  wrought  by  handkerchiefs  and  aprons  from  the  body  of 
St.  Paul.  (Acts  xix.  11,  12.)  And  we  are  also  told  that  the 
shadow  of  St.  Peter  and  the  hem  of  our  Lord's  garment  had 
this  effect.  (Matt.  xix.  20 ;  Acts  v.  15.)  From  these  examples 
we  see  that  God,  of  old,  did  make  use  of  such  means  to  show 
His  power  and  love,  and  He  certainly  may  do  so  now. 

§  4.   Testimony  of  the  Fathers. 

I  shall  put  the  passages  together  that  relate  to  the  invoca- 
tion of  saints,  their  relics  and  images,  leaving  the  reader  to  dis- 
tinguish the  one  from  the  other. 

In  the  account  given  of  the  martyrdom  of  the  holy  Ignatius, 
Bishop  of  Antioch,  and  disciple  of  St.  John,  it  is  related  : 

"  He  was  thrown  to  the  wild  beasts  at  a  spot  close  to  the 
temple ;  and  so  was  speedily  carried  into  effect  the  desire  of 
this  holy  martyr  Ignatius,  according  to  that  which  is  written, 
4  the  desire  of  the  righteous  shall  be  granted.'  For  thus  he  was 
a  burthen  to  none  of  his  brethren  from  the  trouble  of  gathering 
up  his  remains ;  a  consummation  in  correspondence  with  a 
wish  which  he  had  previously  expressed  in  his  Epistle.  The 
harder  parts  were  alone  left,  and  these  were  gathered  up  and 
carried  to  Antioch,  where  they  were  wrapped  in  a  linen  cloth, 
and  deposited  with  the  brethren  of  that  Holy  Church — a 
treasure  rendered  invaluable  by  the  Christian  graces  which  had 
adorned  the  martyr's  life." 

The  same  holy  martyr,  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Trallians,  says  : 
"  My  spirit  saluteth  you  ;  not  now  only,  but  when  I  shall  have 
gone  to  God."  Observe  how  explicit  this  is. 

In  the  letter  of  the  Church  of  Smyrna,  giving  an  account 

of  the  martyrdom  of  holy  Polycarp,  they  say :  "  And  so  we 

afterwards  gathered  up  his  bones,  more  valued  than  stones  of 

much  price,  and  purer  than  fine  gold,  and  laid  them  in  a  fitting 

58 


674  RELICS    AND   IMAGES. 

treasure-house.  Thus  assembling,  as  we  may,  in  joy  and  tri 
umph,  the  Lord  shall  grant  us  to  celebrate  the  birthday. of  his 
martyrdom,  both  to  the  remembering  of  them  who  wrestled 
before  in  the  cause,  and  the  training  and  preparing  of  those  that 
shall  come  after." 

That  the  Christians,  who  were  themselves  the  disciples  of 
the  apostles,  were  in  the  habit  of  meeting  together  and  cele- 
brating the  martyrdom  of  a  saint  over  his  relics,  (which  they  es- 
teemed of  so  much  value,)  is  not  only  shown  by  the  foregoing 
extract,  but  also  by  the  account  of  the  martyrdom  of  Ignatius, 
in  which  they  say  : 

"  And  now  we  make  known  to  you  the  day  and  time  at 
which  this  event  occurred  ;  that  at  the  season  of  his  martyrdom 
we  may  gather  together,  and  collect  a  portion  of  the  spirit 
which  animated  this  courageous  champion  and  martyr  of 
Christ."  It  will  be  remembered  that  the  bones  of  the  holy 
martyr  had  been  deposited  with  that  Church. 

The  foregoing  extracts  may  be  found  in  the  first  volume  of 
the  Oxford  Tracts. 

St.  Justin  Martyr  :  "  But  both  God,  and  the  Son  who  came 
from  him,  and  taught  us  these  things,  and  the  host  of  other 
good  angels  that  follow  and  resemble  (him,  or  them),  and  the 
prophetic  spirit,  we  venerate  and  adore,  honoring  in  reason  and 
truth,  and  freely  delivering  to  every  one  who  wishes  to  learn, 
even  as  we  have  been  taught."  (Apol.  i.,  n.  6.) 

The  testimony  of  St.  Irenaeus  has  already  been  given  when 
treating  of  the  Blessed  Virgin  Mary. 

St.  Clement  of  Alexandria :  "  The  perfect  Christian  also 
prays  together  with  angels,  as  being  already  the  equal  of  angels ; 
nor  is  he  ever  out  of  the  holy  guardianship ;  even  though  he 
may  pray  alone,  he  has  the  chair  of  the  holy  ones  standing  by." 
(Strom.,  1.  vii.,  p.  879.) 

Tertullian :  "  You  may  begin  from  parables :  When  is  the 
lost  sheep  sought  for  by  the  Lord,  and  carried  back  upon  his 
shoulders  ?  Let  the  very  pictures  of  your  chalices  come  forth, 
if  even  in  them  the  interpretation  of  that  animal  will  clearly 
shine  forth,  whether  it  portray  the  restoration  of  a  sinner  that 
was  a  Christian,  or  a  Gentile."  (De  Perdicit,  n.  7,  p.  559.) 

From  this  authority  it  is  clear  that  it  was  usual,  in  the  time 


RELICS   AND   IMAGES.  675 

of  Tertullian,  for  images  of  Christ  returning  with  the  lost  sheep 
upon  His  shoulders,  to  be  engraved  upon  the  chalices  used  in 
the  celebration  of  the  Eucharist.  Eusebius  also  says  :  "  And  it 
is  no  wonder  that  they  of  the  Gentiles  who  were  formerly  bene- 
fited by  our  Saviour,  should  have  done  this,  when  we  have 
learnt  that  the  images  also  of  the  apostles,  Peter  and  Paul,  and 
even  of  Christ  Himself,  are  preserved  in  paintings."  (H.  E.  L. 
vii.,  c.  xviii.) 

These  are  testimonies  of  the  second  century.  Another  class 
of  testimony,  of  very  ancient  date,  (certainly  before  the  genernl 
persecutions  ceased  in  315,)  consists  of  the  inscriptions  upon  the 
tombs  of  the  saints  whose  bodies  repose  in  the  Catacombs. 

"  Every  part  of  Rome,"  says  Bifhop  Wiseman,  "  is  under- 
rained  with  catacombs,  in  which  the  bodies  of  saints  and  mar- 
tyrs were  deposited  after  their  deaths.  The  tombs  are  even 
some  of  them  as  yet  sealed  up  and  unbroken ;  some  with  in- 
scriptions on  them,  or  perhaps  a  palm  branch  rudely  sculptured, 
to  show  that  there  repose  the  martyrs  of  Christ.  We  have 
phials,  adhering  and  fastened  to  the  covers  of  the  tombs,  in  the 
walls  of  the  catacombs,  in  which  are  sponges,- or  sediment,  still 
tinged  with  the  color  of  blood ;  indeed,  the  very  instruments 
of  martyrdom  are  constantly  found  in  tombs.  Certainly,  these 
were  men  who  knew  Christianity,  who  fully  appreciated  what 
was  due  to  Christ,  for  whom  they  died,  who  were  fully  con- 
vinced that  nothing  on  earth  was  to  be  preferred  before  Him, 
and  that  no  creature  could  pretend  to  one  particle  of  the  honor 
reserved  by  Him  to  Himself!  Surely  we  cannot  want  purer  or 
more  satisfactory  witnesses  to  what  Christ  instituted,  than  they 
who  shed  their  blood  to  seal  its  truth  ;  we  cannot  want  teachers 
better  imbued  with  the  spirit  of  His  religion,  than  those  who 
were  ready  to  lay  down  their  lives  to  defend  it !  Let  us  see 
what  was  their  belief  regarding  their  brethren,  when  they  de- 
posited them  in  those  tombs,  and  sealed  them  up,  and  inscribed 
on  them  their  regrets  or  their  hopes.  Nothing  is  more  common 
than  to  find  on  them  a  supplication,  a  prayer  to  the  saints  or 
martyrs  to  intercede  for  the  survivors  with  God." 

I  give  only  the  English  translations  of  the  original  Latin,  as 
given  by  the  bishop,  referring  to  the  13th  of  his  Moorfield  Lec- 
tures for  the  originals : 


676  RELICS    AND   IMAGES. 

"  Sabbatius,  sweet  soul,  pray  and  entreat  for  thy  brethren 
and  comrades." 

"  Atticus,  thy  spirit  is  in  bliss  ;  pray  for  thy  parents." 

"  Jovian  us,  may  you  live  in  God  and  pray." 

"  Anatolinus  made  this  monument  to  his  well-beloved  son, 
who  lived  seven  years.  May  thy  spirit  rest  well  in  God,  and 
thou  pray  for  thy  sister." 

"  Pray  for  us,  because  we  know  that  thou  art  in  Christ." 

'"  These  are,"  says  the  Bishop,  "  most  of  them  inscriptions 
on  the  tombs  of  martyrs,  whose  bodies  were  deposited  therein 
during  the  very  first  centuries  of  Christianity,  when  men  were 
ready  to  die  for  the  faith  of  Christ." 

IN  THE  THIRD  CENTURY. — In  the  account  of  the  martyrdom 
of  the  saints,  Perpetua  and  others,  it  is  stated  that  Saturnus  the 
martyr  asked  of  Perdeus  "  the  ring  on  his  finger,  and  having 
plunged  it  in*  his  wound,  returned  it  to  him,  leaving  him  that 
pledge  as  an  inheritance,  and  a  memorial  of  his  blood." 

Origen,  who  wrote  in  A.  D.  216  :  "  And  no  wonder  if  a 
saint  sanctify,  by  the  word  of  God  and  prayer,  the  food  of 
which  we  partake,  when  even  the  very  garments  with  which  he 
is  clothed  are  holy.  The  handkerchiefs  and  aprons  of  Paul  de- 
rived so  much  holiness  from  his  purity,  that,  when  applied  to 
the  bodies  of  the  sick,  they  drove  away  diseases,  and  restored 
health ;  and  of  Peter  what  shall  I  say,  the  very  shadow  of 
whose  body  leave  with  it  so  much  holiness,  that  whomsoever, 
not  he,  but  his  shadow  only  touched,  was  at  once  relieved  from 
every  ailment."  (T.  iv.,  L.  ix.  Com.  in  Ep.  ad  Rom.  666.) 

"  But  not  the  high  priest  (Jesus  Christ)  alone  prays  with 
those  who  pray  sincerely,  but  also  the  angels  who  rejoice  in 
heaven  upon  one  sinner  who  is  penitent,  more  than  upon  ninety- 
nine  just  who  need  not  penitence,  as  also  the  souls  of  the  saints 
who  have  already  fallen  asleep." 

In  this  extract  it  is  clearly  stated  that  the  angels,  and  the 
saints  who  have  fallen  asleep,  pray  with  those  who  pray  sin- 
cerely. Origen  refers  in  proof  to  the  Book  of  Tobias  iii.  24, 
and  to  2  Mac.  xv.,  and  then  refers  to  the  New  Testament  in 
this  way : 

"  But  one  of  the  principal  virtues,  according  to  the  Divine 
Word,  is  charity  towards  our  neighbor,  which  we  must  needs 


RELICS    AND   IMAGE8.  677 

think  is  felt,  by  the  departed  saints,  towards  those  who  are 
struggling  in  life,  more  exceedingly  than  by  those  who  are  yet 
in  human  infirmity,  and  are  but  struggling  together  with  those 
who  need  aid.  Not  here  only  is  it  fulfilled  in  those  who  love 
the  brethren.  If  one  member  suffer,  all  the  members  suffer 
with  it  •  and  if  one  member  be  honored,  all  the  members  rejoice 
with  it,  (1  Cor.  xii.,)  for  it  is  also  suitable  to  the  love  of  those 
who  are  out  of  this  life  to  say :  The  care  of  all  the  churches : 
who  is  weak,  and  I  am  not  weak  f  Who  is  scandalized,  and 
I  am  not  on  fire  ?  (2  Cor.  xi.)  (T.  i.  De  Oratione,  n.  xi.) 

In  this  extract  it  is  very  clearly  stated  that  the  love  of  the 
brethren  spoken  of  by  St.  Paul  is  more  perfect  in  the  saints  in 
glory  than  it  is  in  the  saints  on  earth,  and  that  it  is  suitable  for 
those  in  glory  still  to  say  with  Paul,  "  The  care  of  all  the 
churches,"  &c.,  is  still  on  us. 

"  If  we  wish  that  there  be  a  multitude  of  those  whom  we 
desire  to  be  kindly  disposed  towards  us,  that  ten  thousand  times 
a  hundred  thousand  stand  before  him,  and  thousands  of  thou- 
sands minister  to  him,  (Dan.  vii.,)  who,  regarding  as  relatives 
and  friends,  those  who  imitate  their  piety  towards  God,  co- 
operate in  the  salvation  of  those  who  call  upon  God,  and  pray 
sincerely,  appearing  to  them,  and  thinking  that  they  ought  to 
obey,  and,  as  though  by  some  compact,  to  come,  for  the  benefit 
and  salvation  of  those  who  are  praying  to  God,  to  whom  they 
also  pray.  For  they  are  all  ministering  spirits,  &c.  (Heb.  i. 
14.)  Jesus  has  taught  us  not  to  despise  the  little  ones  in  the 
Church,  saying  that  their  angels  always  see  the  face  of  my 
Father  who  is  in  heaven."  (T.  i.  Contra  Celsus.,  1.  viii.,  n.  34, 
p.  766,  767.) 

St.  Dionysius  of  Alexandria  :  "  They  who  are  about  to  strug- 
gle in  the  sacred  conflict  of  suffering  for  righteousness,  have 
angels  bringing  aid  to  them  from  heaven."  (De  Martyrio, 
p.  40.) 

St.  Cyprian,  who  wrote  about  A.  D.  248 :  In  a  letter  to  Camil- 
ius,  who  was  then  in  exile,  he  says  :  "  Let  us  be  mutually  mind- 
ful of  each  other,  of  one  heart  and  one  mind,  let  us  ever  on  either 
side  pray  for  each  other,  by  mutual  love  lighten  our  burthens 
and  difficulties,  and  if  one  of  us  shall,  by  the  speediness  of  the 
divine  vouchsafement,  depart  hence  the  first,  let  our  love  con- 


678  RELICS    AND   IMAGES. 

tinue  in  the  presence  of  the  Lord,  let  not  prayer  for  our  breth- 
ren and  sisters  cease  in  the  presence  of  the  mercy  of  the  Father." 
(Ep.  Ivii.  ad  Cornel.,  p.  206.) 

"  Endure  with  courage,  proceed  spiritually,  arrive  happily ; 
arid  then  remember  us  when  virginity  shall  begin  to  be  honored 
in  you."  (De  Habit.  Yirg.,  p.  362.) 

IN  THE  FOURTH  CENTURY. — Eusebius  says :  "  For  the 
brethren  there  (at  Jerusalem)  venerating,  according  to  a  de- 
rived custom,  the  throne,  which  has  been  preserved  to  this  day, 
of  James,  the  first  who  received  from  Christ  and  the  apostles 
the  episcopate  of  the  Church  of  Jerusalem,  point  out  clearly  to 
all,  what  veneration,  both  they  of  old  and  the  men  of  our  days, 
preserved,  and  still  preserve  towards  holy  men,  on  account  of 
their  love  of  God."  (H.  E.  L.  vii.,  c.  xix.) 

"  Who  can  doubt  that  the  places  which  have  been  honored 
by  the  bodies  of  the  martyrs,  and  have  preserved  the  memory 
of  their  glorious  death,  belong  to  the  Church?"  (In  the  Vita 
Constant.,  1.  ii.,  c.  xl.) 

St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem:  "And  let  us  not  foolishly  disbelieve, 
as  though  this  had  not  happened;  for  if  handkerchiefs  and 
aprons,  which  are  external,  when  they  touched  the  bodies  of 
the  sick,  raised  up  the  infirm,  how  much  more  should  the 
body  itself  of  the  prophet  raise  the  dead."  (Catech.  xviii., 
n.  16.) 

Apostolical  Constitutions :  "  Wherefore  even  the  very  relics 
of  those  who  live  with  God  are  not  without  honor.  For  even 
Eliseus  the  prophet,  after  he  was  fallen  asleep,  raised  up  a  dead 
man  who  was  slain  by  the  pirates  of  Syria ;  for  his  body  touched 
the  bones  of  Eliseus,  and  he  arose  and  lived  again.  Now  this 
would  not  have  happened  unless  the  body  of  Eliseus  was  holy." 
(L.  vi.,  n.  30.) 

Martyrdom  of  St.  Vincent :  "  There  might  you  have  seen 
the  multitude  that  had  stood  round,  emulously  kiss  the  feet  of 
the  saint,  touch  with  pious  curiosity  the  wounds  with  which  the 
whole  body  was  lacerated,  receive  in  linen  cloths  the  blood,  as 
with  sacred  veneration,  to  be  a  future  benefit  to  their  posterity." 
(Pass.  St.  Vincent.) 

St.  Hilary  of  Poictiers :  "  We  owe  more  to  your  cruelty, 
Nero,  Decius,  and  Maximinian,  (than  to  Constantius,)  for 


RELICS    AND    IMAGES.  679 

through  you  we  conquered  Satan.  Everywhere  was  the  holy 
blood  of  the  martyrs  received,  and  their  venerable  bones  are  a 
daily  testimony,  while  evil  spirits  halt  at  them,  while  mala- 
dies are  expelled,  while  wonderful  works  are  seen."  (Contr. 
Const.  Imp.,  n.  8.) 

"  So  those  that  would  fain  stand,  neither  the  guardianship 
of  saints,  nor  the  defences  of  angels,  are  wanting."  (Tract,  in 
Ps.  Ixxiv.,  n.  5,  6,  p.  454.) 

"  Not,  therefore,  the  nature  of  God,  but  our  infirmity  needs 
their  intercession.  For  they  are  sent  on  behalf  of  those  who 
shall  inherit  salvation :  not  that  God  is  ignorant  of  any  thing  we 
do,  but  our  infirmity  stands  in  need  of  the  ministry  of  spiritual 
intercession  in  order  to  supplicate  and  to  merit."  (Tract,  cxxix., 
n.  vii.,  494.) 

Eusebius  :  "  Hence  it  is  our  custom  also  to  go  to  their  tombs, 
and  to  offer  up  our  prayers  beside  them,  and  to  honor  their 
blessed  souls,  and  those  things  are  laudably  practised  by  us." 
(Pnep.  Ev.,  L.  xiii.,  c.  xi.,  p.  663.) 

*  *  *  u  of  wnich  may  we  be  found  worthy  by  the  prayers  and 
intercessions  of  all  the  saints."  (Comm.  in  His.  in  fine,  t.  ii., 
Nov.  Coll.  Monte.) 

Celsus :  "  Thus  Job  the  just  is  exhibited  as  about  to  pray 
and  petition  for  the  sins  of  his  three  friends,  and  the  proof  of  his 
fear  and  faith  is  sealed  by  the  attesting  voice  of  the  Lord. 
When,  therefore,  in  the  day  of  thy  liberation,  thou  shalt  first 
present  thyself  before  the  face  of  Christ  *  *  *  by  the  mercy  of 
the  Lord,  then  bear  in  mind  thy  child,  Celsus."  (Prref.  de 
Jud.  Incud.  ad  Virgil.,  Ep.  Galland.,  t.  iv.,  p.  440.) 

St.  Ephraim  Syrus  :  "  God  dwells  in  their  relics ;  thence 
have  they  ability  to  work  every  kind  of  miracle.  O  God  that 
dwellest  in  the  just,  to  thee  be  glory,  and  may  thy  mercy  be 
upon  us."  (T.  ii.,  Gr.  in  Vit.  B.  Abra,,  p.  19.) 

"  For  the  grace  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  that  performs  all  mira- 
cles, is  ever  present  with  their  holy  relics."  (T.  ii.,  Gr.  Encom. 
in  Glorios.  M.  M.,  p.  308.) 

St.  Gregory  of  Nazianzum :  "  Such  is  the  veneration  of 
truth,  that  a  little  dust,  or  some  small  relic  of  old  bones,  or  a 
small  portion  of  hair,  or  shreds  of  rag,  or  a  stain  of  blood,  are 


680  KELICS   AND    IMAGES. 

enough  to  have  the  same  honor  as  the  whole  body."     (T.  ii., 
Carm.  Iamb  xviii.,  p.  216.) 

St.  Basil :  "  It  will  be  a  good  action  on  your  part  to  send 
martyrs'  relics  to  this  country,  since,  according  to  your  ac- 
count, the  persecution  in  your  parts,  even  now,  makes  martyrs 
unto  the  Lord."  (T.  iii.,  P.  ii.,  Ep.  civ.,  p.  354.) 

St,  Ambrose :  "  Let  others  hoard  up  silver  and  gold,  and 
tear  it  from  the  hidden  veins.  We  gather  up  the  nails,  and 
these  not  a  few,  that  have  pierced  the  martyrs  ;  we  gather  up 
their  victorious  blood,  and  the  wood  of  the  cross.  These  (relics) 
we  have  not  been  able  to  refuse  to  the  request  of  the  pious 
widow.  Receive  ye,  therefore,  those  gifts  of  salvation  which 
now  are  deposited  under  the  sacred  altars."  (T.  ii.  Exhort. 
Virgin,  7-10,  15.) 

In  speaking  of  the  discovery  of  the  bodies  of  Saints  Gervase 
and  Protase,  St.  Ambrose  says :  "  Whilst  we  were  translating 
them,  a  blind  man  was  restored  to  sight."     (T.  ii.  Ep.   xxii., 
Class  i.,  Soroii  Sera3,  col.  874-8.) 

St.  Siricius,  Pope  :  "  Very  many  of  our  brethren  assembled 
with  us  at  the  relics  of  the  holy  Apostle  Peter,  through  whom 
both  the  apostulate  and  espiscopate  took  its  rise."  (Epis.  per 
Afric.,  col.  1028,  t.  ii.  Labb.) 

St.  John  Chrysostom :  "  The  place  that  received  that 
slaughtered  body,  small  and  confined  as  it  is,  is  more  revered 
than  ten  thousand  royal  chambers,  and  more  precious  than 
kings  themselves.  And  his  sepulchre  shall  be  glorious.  (Is. 
xi.  10.)  And  what  is  more  strange  still,  this  has  not  befallen 
him  (Christ)  only,  but  the  very  same  has  happened  to  his  dis- 
ciples. For  the  men  that  were  dragged  and  led  about,  the  men 
that  were  despised  and  bound  in  fetters,  the  men  that  suffered 
countless  hardships,  are,  since  their  death,  more  honored  than 
kings.  And  how,  learn  hence.  In  that  most  regal  city, 
Rome,  both  kings,  and  consuls,  and  generals,  leaving  every 
thing  else,  hasten  to  the  tombs  of  the  fisherman  and  the  tent- 
maker."  (T.  i.  Contra  Gent,  et  Jud.  Quod  Christus  sit  Deus, 
n.  8,  9,  10,  p.  695-8.) 

St.  Jerome :  "  You  say  that  Virgilantius  again  opens  his 
fetid  mouth,  and  casts  his  most  vile  filth  against  the  relics  of  the 
holy  martyrs,  and  that  he  calls  us,  who  admit  relics,  cinder- 


RELICS    AND   IMAGES.  681 

worshippers  and  idolaters,  who  venerate  dead  men's  bones. 
The  miserable  man,  whose  state  is  to  be  bewailed  with  torrents 
of  tears.  *  *  *  *  But  we  worship  not,  we  adore  not,  I  do  not  say 
relics  only,  but  not  even  the  sun  and  moon,  not  angels,  not 
archangels,  not  the  cherubim,  not  the  seraphim,  *  *  *  *  lest  wo 
serve  the  creature  rather  than  the  Creator,  who  is  blessed  for- 
evermore.  But  we  honor  the  relics  of  martyrs,  that  we  may 
adore  him  whose  martyrs  they  are.  We  honor  the  servants, 
that  the  honor  given  to  the  servants  may  redound  to  the  Lord, 
who  says,  He  that  receiveth  you,  receiveth  me."  (T.  i.,  Ep. 
cix.  ad  Reparium,  n.  1,2,  col.  719-21.) 

Addressing  Virgilantius,  he  asks :  "  Who,  thou  madman, 
has  ever  adored  the  martyrs  ?  Who  has  thought  man  a  God  ?  " 
(T.  ii.  adv.  Vigilant.,  n.  1,  4-6,  col.  387-91.) 

As  we  have  seen,  the  first  to  charge  the  early  Christians 
with  idolatry,  because  of  the  honor  paid  to  the  relics  of  martyrs, 
were  the  unbelieving  Jews,  who  witnessed  the  martyrdom  of 
holy  Poly  carp.  In  A.  D.  380,  the  Sophist  Eunapius  made  the 
same  charge.  The  charge  was  also  made  by  Vigilantius,  as  the 
above  extract  shows.  It  was  also  made  by  Faustus.  It  was  a 
common  charge  always  found  in  the  mouths  of  infidels  and  the 
worst  class  of  heretics.  The  extract  from  the  great  St.  Jerome 
exactly  expresses  the  faith  of  the  Catholic  Church,  and  makes 
the  clear  distinction  between  subordinate  and  supreme  honor. 

St.  Athanasius :  He  says  that  we  ought  to  recite  and  sing 
the  Psalms  exactly  as  the  words  are  written,  "  That  the  holy 
men  who  have  communicated  the  words  as  ministers,  recog- 
nizing their  own  words,  may  pray  for  us."  (T.  i.,  n.  31,  p.  1001.) 

St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  :  "  We  then  commemorate  also  those 
who  have  fallen  asleep  before  us,  first,  patriarchs,  prophets, 
apostles,  martyrs,  that  God,  by  their  prayers  and  intercessions, 
may  receive  our  petitions."  (Catech.  Myst.  v.,  n.  ix.,  p.  328.) 

St.  Ephraim  Syrus :  "  Accept,  O  Lord,  the  supplication  of 
thy  servant,  by  the  intercessions  of  the  saints  who  have  been 
well  pleasing  unto  thee."  (T.  i.  Gr.  de  Poenit.  [in  fine]  p.  153.) 

"  Blessed  are  they  that  suifer  in  the  Lord,  for  the  delights 
of  Paradise  await  them  ;  of  which  may  we  be  all  partakers  by 
the  intercessions  of  all  those  who  have  been  well  pleasing  to  our 

59 


682  RELICS    AND   IMAGES. 

Lord  Jesus  Christ."  (T.  i.  Gr.  Confess,  sen  Precat.,  p.  226,  de 
Virtute,  cap.  ix.) 

St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa :  "  And  do  thou  (Ephraim)  that  art 
standing  at  the  divine  altar,  and  art  ministering  with  angels  to 
the  life-giving  and  most  holy  Trinity,  bear  us  all  in  remem- 
brance, petitioning  for  us  the  remission  of  sins,  and  the  fruition 
of  an  everlasting  kingdom."  (T.  iii.  De  Vita  Ephraim,  p.  616.) 

St.  John  Chrysostom :  "  We  may  then  also  be  enabled  to 
become  companions  of  the  saints,  by  the  prayers  of  those  saints, 
and  by  the  grace  and  goodness  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 
(T.  ii.  Horn,  S.  Ign.  M.,  n.  5,  p.  716,  717.) 

St.  Gregory  of  Nazianzum :  "  I  am  persuaded  that  he  (St. 
Cyprian)  now  (guards  the  flock)  more  effectually  by  hi-s  inter- 
cession, than  he  did  formerly  by  his  teaching,  by  so  much  as  he 
is  nigher  unto  God."  (T.  i.  de  St.  Cypriano,  p.  288.) 

St.  Basil :  "  Of  the  holy  spiritual  powers  that  have  their 
places  in  heaven,  some  are  called  eyes,  from  being  intrusted  to 
watch  over  us  ;  others,  ears,  from  receiving  our  prayers."  (T. 
i.  Horn,  in  Ps.  xxxiii.,  n.  11,  p.  219.) 

St.  Epiphanius :  "  Holy  indeed  is  the  body  of  Mary ;  but 
she  was  no  God."  "  Let  no  one  make  oblation  unto  her  name, 
for  that  ruins  his  soul ;  nor,  on  the  other  hand,  let  him  behave 
madly  by  insulting  the  holy  Virgin."  "  We  are  not  to  honor 
the  saints  beyond  what  is  due,  but  to  honor  their  Lord."  "  But 
neither  Elias  is  to  be  adored,  though  still  living ;  nor  John," 
&c.  *  *  *  *  "  Be  Mary  in  honor ;  but  be  the  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Ghost  adored :  let  no  one  adore  Mary.  *  *  *  Though 
Mary  be  most  excellent  and  holy  and  honored,  yet  she  is  not  to 
be  adored."  (T.  i.  Adv.  Haeres.  Collyrid.,  p.  1061-5.) 

These  extracts  related  to  an  obscure  sect  of  female  heretics 
in  Arabia,  called  Collyridians,  who  offered  a  kind  of  twisted 
cake  in  sacrifice  to  the  Blessed  Virgin. 

St.  Ambrose :  "  May  Peter,  who  wept  so  effectually  for 
himself,  weep  for  us,  and  turn  towards  us  Christ's  benignant 
countenance."  (T.  i.  HexsBm.,  1.  v.,  c.  25,  n.  90,  p.  114.) 

"  The  angels — who  have  been  given  to  us  for  our  protection 
— are  to  be  invoked  in  our  behalf;  the  martyrs — whose  patron- 
age we  seem  to  have  a  claim  to  by  a*kind  of  pledge  derived 


RELICS    AND    IMAGES.  683 

from  the  body — are  to  be  invoked."  (T.  ii.  De  Yideris,  c.  ix., 
n.  54,  55,  p.  200.) 

St.  Jerome  :  "  The  day  will  come  wherein  thou  wilt  return  a 
conqueror  to  thy  country,  wherein  thou  wilt  traverse  the  heav- 
enly Jerusalem,  the  brave  man  crowned.  Then  wilt  thou  be  a 
fellow-citizen  with  Paul ;  then  for  thy  parents  also  wilt  thou  pe- 
tition the  rights  of  that  same  city.  Then  too  wilt  thou  pray  for 
me,  who  spurred  thee  on  to  conqueror."  (T.  i.  Ep.  xiv.  ad 
Heliardor.,  n.  3,  p.  29.)  He  also  invoked  the  prayers  of  St. 
Paula,  in  the  close  of  his  life  of  that  saint. 

St.  Damasus,  Pope  :  "  Be  favorable,  I  beseech  thee,  glori- 
ous martyr,  to  the  prayers  of  Damasus."  (Carm.  xx.) 

IN  THE  FIFTH  CENTURY. — "  Of  the  martyrs  the  justice  is  per- 
fect," says  the  great  St.  Augustin,  "  because  in  their  passion  itself 
they  were  perfected.  For  this  cause  prayer  is  not  offered  for 
them  in  the  Church.  For  the  other  faithful  departed  we  pray, 
for  martyrs  we  do  not  pray  ;  for  they  departed  so  perfect,  as 
not  to  be  our  clients,  but  our  advocates.  Neither  are  they  this 
in  themselves,  but  in  him  to  whom  they  cleaved — perfect  mem- 
bers of  the  head."  (T.  v.  Serm.  cclxxxv.,  n.  5,  col.  1685.) 

"A  most  delightful  picture  is  this,  when  you  behold  St. 
Stephen  being  stoned,  you  behold  Saul  holding  the  garments 
of  those  who  cast  the  stones.  *****  With  him  whom  thou 
didst  stone  though  reignest  with  Christ.  You  both  there  be- 
hold each  other ;  you  both  hear  my  discourse ;  both  pray  for 
us."  (T.  v.  Serm.  cccvii.,  n.  5,  col.  1689.) 

"  But  the  Christian  people  unite  in  celebrating,  with  re- 
ligious solemnity,  the  memories  of  the  martyrs,  both  to  excite 
to  an  imitation  of  them,  and  to  be  associated  to  their  merits, 
and  aided  by  their  prayers  ;  yet  so  that  to  none  of  the  martyrs, 
although  in  places  dedicated  to  martyrs,  do  we  raise  altars. 
For  what  prelate  standing  at  the  altar,  in  the  places  of  their 
holy  bodies,  ever  said,  we  offer  to  thee  Peter,  or  Paul,  or 
Cyprian  ?  but  what  is  offered  is  offered  to  God,  who  crowned 
the  martyrs,  in  the  places  dedicated  to  their  memory  whom  he 
crowned ;  that  from  the  admonition  furnished  by  those  very 
places  a  greater  affection  may  arise,  to  make  our  love  keener 
both  towards  those  whom  we  are  able  to  imitate,  and  towards 
him  by  whose  help  we  have  that  ability.  We,  therefore,  wor- 


684:  EELICS    AND    IMAGES. 

ship  the  martyrs  with  that  worship  of  love  and  of  fellowship 
with  which,  even  in  this  life,  holy  men  are  worshipped,  whose 
hearts  we  feel  are  ready  to  endure  a  similar  death  for  evangeli- 
cal truth.  But  the  martyrs  the  more  devotedly,  as  it  is  the 
safer  after  their  conflicts  overcome :  as  also  with  more  confident 
praise  do  we  exalt  those  who  are  already  triumphant  in  a  hap- 
pier life  than  those  who  are  still  engaged  in  battle  in  this  life. 
But  with  that  worship  which  in  Greek  is  called  Xarpeta — (in 
Latin  it  cannot  be  expressed  in  one  word) — as  it  is  a  kind  of 
service  properly  due  to  the  Divinity,  we  neither  worship,  nor 
teach  to  worship,  other  than  the  one  God.  But  whereas  to  this 
worship  pertains  the  oblation  of  sacrifice — whence  they  who 
oifer  this  also  to  idols  are  declared  guilty  of  idolatry — we  do 
not  in  any  wise  offer,  or  teach  to  be  offered,  any  thing  of  this 
kind,  either  to  any  martyr,  to  any  holy  soul,  or  to  any  angel ; 
and  whoever  falls  into  this  error,  he  is  reproved  by  sound  teach- 
ing, either  that  he  may  amend,  or  be  avoided."  (T.  iii.,  lib.  xx., 
n.  21,  Contra  Faustum,  col.  544-6.) 

It  will  be  seen,  by  the  attentive  examination  of  this  extract, 
that  the  distinctions  now  made  by  the  Catholic  Church  were 
made  by  this  great  writer.  The  first  extract  proves  that 
prayers  were  offered  for  the  dead,  but  not  for  the  martyrs  who 
needed  them  not. 

I  will  close  this  list  by  the  following  extract  from  this  great 
and  distinguished  saint,  than  whom  there  perhaps  never  lived  a 
brighter  example  of  piety  and  ability,  since  the  days  of  the 
apostles  : 

"  We  celebrate  on  this  day  the  erecting  of  a  place  to  the 
memory  of  St.  Protasius  and  St.  Gervasius,  the  martyrs  of 
Milan :  not  the  day  whereon  it  was  erected  here,  but  we  on 
this  day  celebrate  the  day  on  which  the  death  of  his  saints  was, 
through  Ambrose,  that  man  of  God,  precious  in  the  sight  of 
God  •  of  the  which  great  glory  of  the  martyrs  I  also  was  a 
witness.  I  was  there  ;  I  was  at  Milan ;  I  knew  the  miracles 
done  ;  God  testifying  to  the  precious  deaths  of  the  saints;  that 
through  those  miracles  that  death  might  be  not  only  precious 
in  the  sight  of  God,  but  also  in  the  sight  of  men.  A  blind  man 
very  well  known  to  the  whole  city  received  his  sight;  he  ran; 
he  caused  himself  to  be  led  :  he  came  back  without  a  guide* 


RELICS    AND    IMAGES.  685 

*  *  *  Not  to  all  does  God  bestow  health  through  the  mar- 
tyrs, but  to  all  that  imitate  the  martyrs  does  he  promise  their 
immortality."  (T.  v.  Serm.  cclxxxvi.,  n.  4,  5,  in  Natal.  M.  M. 
Pro.  et  Ger.,  col.  1689.) 

Were  these  great  and  noble  men  impostors  and  idolaters  ? 
They  are  the  witnesses  upon  whom  Dr.  Paley  relied  to  prove 
the  truth  of  Christianity  itself. 

I  have  passed  over  many  authorities  for  want  of  space. 
That  the  Catholic  doctrine  was  the  universal  doctrine  of  the 
Church  in  the  very  first  ages  of  Christianity,  there  would  seem 
to  be  no  doubt.  The  fact  is  certain,  that  angels  are  ministering 
spirits,  as  St.  Paul  says,  and  that  the  saints  in  glory  are  as  the 
angels,  as  we  are  told  by  Christ ;  and  as  the  angels  are  such 
ministering  spirits,  it  is  very  strange  that  they  cannot  aid  us  by 
their  prayers,  while  this  assistance  can  be  given  us  by  our 
brethren  on  earth.  What  substantial  difference  there  can  be 
between  the  principle  of  the  two  cases,  it  is  difficult  to  perceive. 


CHAPTER  XV. 

MISCELLANEOUS    CONSIDERATIONS. 
§  1.  General  Misrepresentation  of  Catholic  Doctrines. 

THAT  fair  and  candid  controvertists  may  often  misconceive 
each  other's  meaning,  is  not  surprising.  This  arises  from  the 
general  poverty,  and  uncertain  character,  of  language,  and  often 
from  a  want  of  certainty  and  elearness  in  the  statement  of  a 
position.  Writers,  who  have  themselves  confused  conceptions 
of  the  subject  they  discuss,  or  of  the  positions  they  lay  down, 
will  necessarily  use  confused  language.  And  in  quoting  from 
an  author,  who  did  not  himself  understand  distinctly  what  he 
intended  to  state,  or  who  uses  inappropriate  and  loose  language, 
it  may  be  very  difficult  to  avoid  the  appearance  of  unfairness. 
Quotations  must  have  their  practical  limits ;  and  it  is  not  al- 
ways easy  to  know,  in  every  case,  where  these  limits  are  to  be 
found.  So  much  of  an  author  should  be  quoted  as  to  show  his 
true  position  in  reference  to  the  single  point  regarding  which 
the  quotation  is  made.  It  cannot  be  expected  that  the  reasons 
for  his  position  can  be  quoted,  unless  those  reasons  are  exam- 
ined. If,  therefore,  he  states  a  general  principle,  and  then 
states  a  qualification  or  limitation  to  be  taken  out  of,  or  an- 
nexed to,  this  general  principle,  the  exception  to  the  general 
principle  ought  also  to  be  given  ;  provided  the  point,  to  prove 
which  the  quotation  is  made,  requires  it.  If  I  quote  an  author 
for  a  given  purpose,  I  need  only  quote  so  much  as  that  purpose 
fairly  requires.  The  quotation  may  also  prove  other  matters, 
not  then  under  discussion  ;  but  the  just  reader  must  keep  in 
view  the  matter  the  writer  has  in  his  mind's  eye  when  making 


MISCELLANEOUS   CONSIDERATIONS.  687 

the  quotation.  Every  writer  upon  moral  and  philosophical 
subjects  must  have  learned  the  practical  difficulty  of  sometimes 
apprehending  the  true  meaning  of  an  author,  and  of  represent- 
ing him  correctly.  Mistakes  of  this  kind  are  to  be  anticipated, 
to  a  certain  extent.  It  must  also  be  conceded,  that  the  fairest 
and  most  impartial  writers  are  sometimes  improperly  accused 
of  unfairness. 

But  after  making  every  fair  and  just  allowance  for  the  gen- 
eral poverty  and  uncertainty  of  language,  and  the  natural  frailty 
of  the  human  mind,  I  am  compelled  to  say,  that  in  all  my  read 
ing  and  observation,  I  have  never  met  with  the  same  amount 
of  gross,  bitter,  and  continued  misrepresentation,  as  I  have 
found  on  the  part  of  Protestant  controvertists,  when  writing 
upon  the  subject  of  the  Catholic  faith.  That  I  am  correct  upon 
this  subject,  and  in  this  opinion,  can  readily  be  seen  by  any 
calm,  careful,  and  diligent  reader,  who  will  take  the  authors  on 
both  sides,  and  fairly  compare  them  together. 

In  reading  Dr.  Mimer's  End  of  Controversy,  I  could  not  but 
remark  the  amount  and  character  of  these  misrepresentations. 
The  candid  James  Brown,  in  his  letter  to  the  author,  says : 
"  The  whole  of  your  letters  have  again  been  read  over  in  our 
society,  and  they  have  produced  important  though  diversified 
effects  on  the  minds  of  its  members."  In  another  place  he 
says :  "  With  respect  to  certain  other  members  of  our  society,  I 
am  sorry  to  be  obliged  to  say,  that,  on  this  particular  subject — 
I  mean  the  arguments  in  favor  of  your  religion — they  do  not 
manifest  the  candor  and  good  sense  which  are  natural  to  them, 
and  which  they  show  on  every  other  subject.  They  pronounce, 
with  confidence  and  vehemence,  that  Dr.  Porteus'  charges  are 
all  true,  and  that  you  cannot  make  any  rational  answer  to  them  ; 
at  the  same  time  that  several  of  these  gentlemen,  to  my  knowl- 
edge, are  very  little  acquainted  with  the  substance  of  them.  In 
short,  they  are  apt  to  load  your  religion,  and  the  professors  of 
it,  with  epithets  and  imputations  too  gross  and  injurious  for 
me  to  repeat,  convinced  as  I  am  of  their  falsehood.  I  shall  not 
be  surprised  to  hear  that  some  of  these  imputations  have  been 
transmitted  to  you  by  the  persons  in  question,  as  I  have  de- 
clined making  my  letters  the  vehicle  of  them ;  it  is  a  justice, 
however,  which  I  owe  them,  to  assure  you,  reverend  sir,  that  it 


688  MISCELLANEOUS   CONSIDERATIONS. 

is  only  since  they  have  understood  the  inference  of  your 
ments  to  be  such  as  to  imply  an  obligation  on  them  of 
ing  their  own  respective  religions,  and  embracing  yours,  thai 
they  have  been  so  unreasonable  and  violent.  Till  this  period, 
they  appeared  to  be  nearly  as  liberal  and  charitable  with  re- 
spect to  your  communion  as  to  any  other." 

In  his  thirty-second  letter,  the  learned  divine  mentions  a 
portion  of  these  misrepresentations,  and  they  are  surely  griev- 
ous enough.  And  so  strong  is  that  feeling  of  violence  and 
prejudice  exhibited  by  a  portion  of  the  respectable  members  of 
the  Society  of  New  Cottage,  that  even  in  theological  dictiona- 
ries and  other  works,  whose  professed  purpose  is  historically  to 
state  the  true  tenets  of  different  bodies  of  professed  Christians, 
we  can  very  seldom  find  any  thing  like  a  fair  statement  of  the 
Catholic  faith.  The  only  theological  dictionary  compiled  by  a 
Protestant,  that  did  give  a  fair  and  just  statement  of  the  Catho- 
lic faith,  so  far  as  my  examination  has  gone,  was  one  by  an 
English  author,  the  just  and  impartial  Bellamy.  The  Oxford 
Tracts  also  give  generally  a  fair  representation  of  the  particular 
tenets  of  the  Catholic  Church,  discussed  by  them.  But  the 
Encyclopedia  of  Religious  Knowledge,  so  confidently  quoted 
by  Mr.  Campbell  as  impartial,  is  one  of  the  most  inaccurate 
works  I  saw,  in  all  that  relates  to  the  Catholic  system.  No 
man,  I  apprehend,  can  read  the  article  upon  the  Catholic  faith, 
and  from  it  form  any  tolerably  accurate  idea  of  its  true  char- 
acter. 

Among  the  Protestant  writers  whose  works  I  examined,  I 
found  Dr.  Spring,  in  his  Dissertation,  to  which  I  have  often  re- 
ferred, one  of  the  most  extreme.  He  charges  the  Catholic 
Church  with  a  complication  of  evils  enough  to  ruin  any  cause, 
if  true.  He  says,  among  other  things :  "  Rome  cannot  endure 
discussion.  The  only  safety  of  her  wicked  system  is  to  keep 
the  world  in  darkness." 

As  I  read  Protestant  and  Catholic  writers  together,  I  soon 
found  this  charge  denied  by  the  latter.  One  of  the  works  read 
by  me  at  the  same  time  I  read  this  Dissertation  of  Dr.  Spring's, 
was  the  volume  containing  the  Moorfield  Lectures  of  Dr.  Wise- 
man, in  the  thirteenth  lecture  of  which  I  found  this  language, 
page  110,  vol.  2  : 


MISCELLANEOUS    CONSIDERATIONS.  689 

"  We  are  anxious  not  to  shrink  from  inquiry,  but  to  court 
it ;  we  throw  open  our  places  of  worship  to  all  men ;  we  publish 
our  books  of  prayer  and  instruction  before  the  world  ;  we  sub- 
mit the  least  of  our  children  and  their  catechism  to  examination ; 
we  invite  all  to  inspect  our  schools,  and  present  the  masters  and 
their  scholars  to  their  interrogation ;  all  that  we  write  and  read  is 
at  the  command  of  the  learned;  and,  if  in  our  power,  we  would 
open  our  breasts,  and  ask  them  to  look  even  into  our  hearts — 
for  God  knows  we  have  nothing  to  shade,  nothing  to  conceal — 
and  then  let  them  read  our  belief,  as  written  on  its  tablets  in 
the  simplest  and  plainest  terms.  No  attack  can  any  longer  be 
allowed  by  any  sensible,  reasonable,  generous,  or  liberal-minded 
man,  except  through  calm  and  cool  investigation,  based  entirely 
on  the  correct  statement  of  our  doctrines,  and  conducted  ex- 
clusively, not  by  vague  quotations  from  the  Word  of  God,  but 
by  arguments  clearly  and  strongly  addressed  to  his  under- 
standing." 

The  learned  divine,  Dr.  Spring,  goes  on  to  say  that  "  Ro- 
manism is  to  a  great  extent  the  religion  of  Infidels."  He 
charges  the  Church  with  finding  "  fault  with  none,  whose  faith, 
be  it  what  it  may,  is  sufficiently  effective  to  reach  their  purses 
in  support  of  its  claims."  But  in  another  place  he  says :  "  The 
Faith  of  Rome  must  be  received  implicitly  or  not  at  all."  "  I 
pity  the  poor  Catholic.  He  believes  he  knows  not  what." 
"  But  it  is  a  fact  which  no  Romanist  will  deny,  that  the  Popes 
of  Rome,  as  a  body  of  men,  have  been  a  dishonor  to  human  na- 
ture." "  The  Romanists  have  altered  and  amended,  and  so  mis- 
translated the  Bible,  as  to  render  it  conformable  to  their  own 
standard."  "  The  religion  of  Rome  is  a  cruel  religion."  "  The 
Romish  Church  is  the  bitterest  foe  of  the  people."  "  I  do  not 
know  a  system  of  folly,  or  impiety,  which,  as  a  religious  system, 
can  be  compared  with  that  which  this  prolific  principle  of  error 
has  produced." 

After  making  these  and  many  other  charges  against  the 
Catholic  Church,  the  learned  author  winds  up  with  this  bold 
and  indignant  figure : 

"  But  no  ;  it  is  the  incarnate  spirit  of  darkness  roaming  over 
the  world,  seeking  whom  it  may  devour,  laying  waste  its  valleys 


090  MISCELLANEOUS    CONSIDERATIONS. 

and  its  hills,  and  drenching  them  with  the  blood  of  its  slain." 
(Dissertation  39,  50,  63,  71,  74,  86.) 

But  not  only  were  the  charges  themselves  most  grievous, 
and  often  contradictory,  but  some  of  the  most  revolting  circum 
stances  that  a  prejudiced  and  diseased  imagination  could  con- 
ceive,  are  brought  in  to  heighten  the  picture.  "  Her  crimes," 
he  says,  "are  plotted  at  the  altar  of  mercy."  (Dis.  85.) 

The  first  work  I  read,  in  the  course  of  my  investigations 
into  the  truth  of  the  Catholic  system,  was  the  debate  between 
Campbell  and  Purcell.  I  was  a  member  of  the  same  church 
with  Mr.  Campbell,  and  had  the  utmost  confidence  in  him.  All 
my  partialities  were  in  his  favor.  And  yet  I  must  say,  I  was 
mortified  when  I  read  the  debate  in  question,  because  of  the  ex- 
treme bitterness  of  the  charges  he  made,  and  the  manner  in 
which  he  shifted  his  positions,  and  the  objectionable  character 
of  many  of  his  main  assumptions,  inferences,  and  deductions. 
The  reading  of  the  debate  did  not  make  me  a  Catholic,  as  I 
thought  I  saw  grounds  of  objection  not  met  by  Bishop  Purcell ; 
but  I  could  not  but  see  that  Mr.  Campbell  had  fought  with  all 
sorts  of  weapons,  and  had  addressed  too  many  of  his  arguments 
to  mere  ignorance  and  prejudice. 

For  example,  he  says  in  reference  to  the  doctrine  of  Tran- 
substantiation : 

"  But  the  priest  can  bring  down  the  divine  Saviour  from 
heaven,  and  offer  him  body,  soul,  and  divinity  as  often  as  he 
pleases,  and  have  the  people  adore  both  him  and  the  miracle  in 
his  hand  ! !  "  (Debate  C.  &  P.,  292.) 

In  this  extract  it  is  substantially  assumed  that,  in  the  con- 
templation of  the  Catholic  theory,  the  change  in  the  elements  is 
produced  by  the  miraculous  power  of  the  priest,  and  that  the 
priest  is  adored  as  well  as  the  miracle.  In  all  my  investigations 
I  could  never  find  such  a  doctrine.  The  change  is  held  to  be 
produced  by  the  words  of  Christ,  "  This  is  my  body,"  in  the 
same  way  that  the  words  of  Christ  produced  the  effect  intended 
when  He  said,  "  Thy  sins  are  forgiven  thee  " — "  Be  thou  clean  " 
— "Thou  art  loosed  from  thine  infirmity" — "Lazarus,  come 
forth."  The  Catholic  Church  holds  that  Christ  has  promised, 
that  when  these  words  are  used  in  the  administration  of  the 
Eucharist,  He  Himself,  by  His  own  Word,  will  produce  the 


MISCELLANEOUS   CONSIDERATIONS.  691 

change.  Aud  that  any  adoration  was  allowed  to  the  priest,  I 
could  never  find  any  proof,  except  the  statement  of  Mr.  Cainp. 
bell. 

It  seemed  a  little  remarkable  that  Mr.  C.  should  have  made 
this  misrepresentation,  when  his  own  Church  had  been  the  vic- 
fim  of  one  based  upon  a  similar  ground.  Mr.  C.  maintains  that 
"  Christian  baptism  is  for  the  remission  of  past  sins."  (C.  and 
R.'s  Debate,  47.)  And  as  pardon  is  something  done  for  a  man 
and  not  by  him ;  and  as  this  pardon  was  a  consequence  that/b£- 
lowed  baptism  •  and  as  this  baptism  was  administered  by  ail 
Elder  of  Mr.  C.'s  communion,  it  might  improperly  be  said  that 
this  remission  was  the  act  of  the  administrator  of  baptism,  and 
not  the  act  of  Christ.  So,  if  I  promise  to  pay  to  another  a 
given  sum  of  money,  for  doing  a  certain  thing,  and  he  does  it, 
and  I  pay  him,  the  payment  might  improperly  be  said  to  be  his 
act,  and  not  mine. 

Now,  if  I  remember  correctly,  it  was  erroneously  objected 
to  the  Disciples,  that  they  claimed  the  power  to  remit  sins  in 
baptism.  They  did  not  claim  any  such  a  power.  They  did, 
and  still  insist,  that  upon  the  performance  of  certain  precedent 
specified  conditions,  Christ  does  remit  sins  in  baptism.  The 
performance  of  these  conditions  is  the  act  of  men,  and  the  re- 
mission the  act  of  our  Lord.  So,  with  regard  to  the  Catholic 
doctrine,  in  reference  to  the  change  in  the  elements.  The  pre- 
cedent conditions  are  performed  by  the  priest,  and  are  his  act, 
and  the  change  is  the  act  of  Christ.  And  the  change  in  the 
Eucharist,  in  the  contemplation  of  the  Catholic  theory,  is  no 
more  the  act  of  sovereign  power  than  the  remission  of  sins  in 
baptism.  They  are  both  held  alike  to  fulfil  the  permanent  pro- 
visions of  a  pre-existing  law. 

A  very  common  mode  of  misrepresentation  among  Protes- 
tant writers,  was  the  assumption  of  an  historical  fact,  contrary 
to  the  genuine  tacts  of  history.  A  notable  example  of  this  may 
be  found  in  the  late  work  of  Dr.  Edward  Beecher,  "  The  Papal 
Controversy  exposed."  I  have  not  seen  the  work,  and  quote 
only  from  a  review  of  it : 

"The  Pilgrim  Fathers  of  New  England,  and  the  other 
Protestant  founders  of  this  great  nation,  came  to  this  Continent 
soon  after  the  Reformation  had  shaken  the  European  world,  to 


MISCELLANEOUS   CONSIDERATIONS. 

lay  the  foundation  of  a  new  order  of  things,  by  erecting  a  neu 
social  system  upon  the  great  principles  of  civil  and  religious 
liberty^ 

If  the  Pilgrim  Fathers  and  other  Protestant  founders,  came 
with  the  intention  to  lay  the  foundation  of  a  new  order  of  things, 
and  did  so,  embracing  both  civil  and  religious  liberty,  we  are  at 
a  loss  to  find  any  competent  historical  proof  of  that  fact.  But 
all  history  of  the  times  shows  the  contrary,  even  that  of  their 
own  historians.  Charles  Marshall,  a  Protestant,  in  his  lecture 
before  the  Irish  Social  and  Benevolent  Society  of  Baltimore, 
delivered  in  1855,  very  truly  says : 

"  It  was  the  settled  principle  of  the  English  Constitution 
that  the  government  must  take  religion  under  its  protection, 
that  the  church  established  by  law,  was  the  only  church  that 
good  subjects  should  support,  and  that  a  refusal  to  conform  to 
the  legalized  religion  of  the  land,  was  an  offence  against  the 
government,  which  the  government  might  and  should  punish, 
by  the  infliction  of  personal  pains  and  penalties,  or  by  a  denial 
of  civil  and  political  privileges.  This  idea  was  flourishing  in 
full  vigof  at  the  time  of  the  settlement  of  America,  and  was  one  of 
the  abuses  imported  by  the  colonists.  The  right  of  government 
to  interfere  with  religious  matters  at  all,  was  not  questioned 
even  by  the  dissenters,  who  suffered  most  from  its  exercise. 
They  only  maintained  that  government  was  giving  its  support  to 
the  wrong  form  of  worship,  and  that  their  peculiar  dogmas  were 
those  which  deserved  and  should  receive  the  fostering  aid  of 
the  law." 

I  mention  this  instance  to  show,  that  men  occupying  high 
literary  positions  at  the  present  day,  are  so  careless  or  preju- 
diced, as  to  misrepresent  the  facts  of  history,  when  they  write 
against  the  Catholic  Church.  I  do  not  make  the  extracts  for 
the  purpose  of  instituting  any  comparison  between  Protestants 
and  Catholics  in  respect  to  persecution,  as  they  both  have  erred. 
I  believe  the  Puritan  Fathers,  and  other  Protestant  founders  of 
our  country,  acted  from  honest,  though  mistaken  views.  And 
I  believe  they  were  governed  by  these  reasons,  in  brief:  1. 
They  believed  their  religion  the  only  true  form  of  Christianity. 
2.  They  believed  in  the  right  and  duty  of  civil  government  to 
protect  it,  and  prohibit  others.  3.  They  believed  religious  error 


MISCELLANEOUS   CONSIDERATIONS.  693 

and  dissention  a  great  evil.  4.  They  believed  the  dissenters 
from  them,  if  successful,  would  prohibit  their  form  of  religion. 
5.  They,  therefore,  thought  that  self-protection,  and  the  best 
humanity,  required  the  suppression  of  dissent  in  its  inception. 

This  system  of  general  misrepresentation  has  been  confessed 
by  many  of  the  most  candid  Protestant  writers.  Thus  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Nightingale,  in  his  Religion  of  All  Nations,  says  :  "  From 
diligent  inquiry  it  has  been  ascertained  that  party  spirit  and 
prejudice  have  thrown  the  most  undeserved  obloquy  upon  the  re- 
ligion and  practices  of  the  Roman  Catholics ; — in  scarcely  a  single 
instance  has  a  case  concerning  them  been  fairly  stated,  or  the 
channels  of  history  not  grossly,  not  to  say  wickedly,  corrupted." 
(Page  65.)  "Even  the  illiberal  Mr.  Ulix,"  says  Archbishop 
Hughes,  "says  that  the  Catholic  religion  is  'calumniated 
cruelly? "  "  No  religious  system,"  says  Nightingale,  "  is 
treated  so  unjustly."  And  Hume  declares  that  "Protestants 
seemed  to  have  thought  that  no  truth  should  be  told  of  the 
Papists."  The  learned  Grotius,  reproaching  the  Protestant 
ministers  on  this  head,  received  for  reply,  "  that  they  found  it 
necessary  for  the  public  good  of  the  Reformed  Religion."  (Let- 
ters to  Vossius.)  And  Vossius  himself,  in  the  same  corre- 
spondence, writes,  that  when  he  reproved  the  ministers  of  Am- 
sterdam, they  admitted  the  iniquity  of  the  proceeding ;  "  but," 
added  they,  "  if  we  leave  off  such  language,  our  people  will 
soon  leave  us." 

§  2.   Causes  of  this  System  of  Misrepresentation. 

Several  questions  naturally  arise  under  this  state  of  fact. 
What  causes  originally  led  to  this  system  of  general  misrep- 
resentation? What  causes  continue  it  even  to  the  present 
day  ?  Is  it  done  with  the  calm  and  deliberate  intent  to  create 
and  foster  that  "  contempt  prior  to  examination,"  which  can 
and  will  resist  any  amount  of  argument  and  proof  whatsoever  ? 
Or  does  it  continue  from  an  ignorance  of  the  Catholic  doc- 
trine ? 

That  this  system  of  injustice  had  its  origin  mainly  in  a  want 
of  integrity,  I  have  no  doubt ;  and  that,  in  many  instances,  it  is 
still  continued  from  the  same  motive,  I  am  forced  to  believe. 
But  in  most  cases  its  continuance  arises  from  a  real  ignorance 


694:  MISCELLANEOUS   CONSIDERATIONS. 

of  the  Catholic  faith  and  its  history,  and  from  such  a  prior  dis« 
gust,  as  prevents  a  fair  examination. 

In  the  beginning  and  during  the  progress  of  what  is  called 
the  Reformation,  many  of  the  most  unprincipled  men,  from  a 
variety  of  motives,  put  themselves  at  the  head  of  that  move- 
ment. Such  men  are  ever  disposed  to  lead  any  new  commotion 
that  promises  them  any  gratification  of  their  passions. 

Alison,  the  distinguished  Protestant  historian,  in  his  His- 
tory of  Europe,  has  this  language : 

"  The  great  sin  of  the  Reformation  was  the  confiscation  of  so 
large  a  portion  of  the  property  of  the  Church  for  the  aggrandize- 
ment of  temporal  ambition,  and  the  enriching  of  the  nobility, 
who  had  taken  part  in  the  struggle.  When  that  great  convul- 
sion broke  out,  nearly  a  third  of  the  whole  landed  estates  in  the 
countries  which  it  embraced,  was  in  the  hands  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church.  What  a  noble  fund  was  this  for  the  moral 
and  religious  instruction  of  the  people,  for  the  promulgation  of 
truth,  the  healing  of  sickness,  the  assuaging  of  suffering.  Had 
it  been  kept  together,  and  set  apart  for  such  sacred  purposes, 
what  incalculable  and  never-ending  blessings  would  it  have  con- 
ferred upon  society.  Expanding  and  increasing  with  the  growth 
of  population,  the  augmentation  of  wealth,  the  swell  of  pauper- 
ism, it  would  have  kept  the  instruction  and  fortunes  of  the  poor 
abreast  of  the  progress  and  fortunes  of  society  ;  and  prevented, 
in  a  great  measure,  that  fatal  effect,  so  well  known  in  Great 
Britain  in  subsequent  times,  of  the  national  church  falling  be- 
hind the  wants  of  the  inhabitants,  and  a  mass  of  civilized 
heathenism  arising  in  the  very  heart  of  a  Christian  land.  Al- 
most all  the  social  evils  under  which  Great  Britain  is  now  labor- 
ing, may  be  traced  to  this  fatal,  and  most  iniquitous  spoliation, 
under  the  mask  of  religion,  of  the  patrimony  of  the  poor,  on  the 
occasion  of  the  Reformation." 

And  the  learned  historian  may  well  call  this  confiscation 
"THE  GREAT  SIN" — "  this  most  iniquitous  spoliation  of 
the  patrimony  of  the  poor,  under  the  mask  of  religion." 

From  these  great  and  unquestioned  historical  facts,  two 
conclusions  plainly  follow  : 

1.  That  they  were  truly  the  leaders  to  whom  the  plunder  was 
distributed.  This  is  a  test,  simple  and  conclusive. 


MISCELLANEOUS   CONSIDERATIONS.  695 

2.  That  the  love  of  plunder  and  pure  intentions  are  never 
found  in  the  same  breast  at  the  same  time.  They  are  too  in- 
compatible to  exist  together. 

It  is  well  laid  down  in  Starkie,  and  other  writers  upon  the 
Law  of  Evidence,  that  there  are  some  circumstances  conclusive 
in  their  nature.  For  example,  the  body  of  a  female  was  found 
in  her  bed,  and  so  disposed  as  to  lead  at  once  to  the  conclusion 
that  she  had  committed  suicide.  This  was  at  first  the  impres- 
sion of  all,  until  they  discovered  the  bloody  print  of  a  right 
hand  upon  the  back  of  her  right  hand.  A  father  was  found 
dead  in  his  bed,  and  suspicion  attached  to  his  blind  son,  until 
it  was  observed  that  the  murderer  had  left  the  bloody  prints  of 
his  hands  on  the  wall,  in  feeling  his  way  out  of  the  room  at 
night.  This  could  not  have  been  the  case  with  the  blind  man, 
to  whom  day  and  night  were  alike. 

It  is,  then,  clear  to  my  mind,  that  the  motives  of  the  leading 
spirits  who  did,  in  fact,  control  and  govern  that  movement  gen- 
erally, were  interested  and  mercenary.  And  from  this  it  is  also 
evident  that  the  sincere  who  participated  in  it  were  forced  to 
yield  to  the  bold,  the  forward,  and  the  unprincipled.  We  see  a 
noted  example  of  this,  in  the  dispensation  granted  by  Luther, 
Melancthon,  and  others,  to  Philip,  the  Landgrave  of  Hesse,  to 
have  two  wives  at  once. 

These  being  the  characteristics  and  motives  of  the  leaders 
of  the  Reformation,  they  would  necessarily  labor  to  vindicate 
and  sustain  themselves  ;  and,  in  doing  so,  the  only  question  they 
would  ask,  would  be  this  :  "  How  shall  we  do  so  the  most  suc- 
cessfully f "  Success,  not  right,  would  be,  with  them,  the 
leading  impulse.*  And  not  only  so,  but  they  would  naturally 
make  up  in  bitterness,  false  accusation,  and  crafty  evasion,  what 
they  truly  lacked  in  argument  and  fact.  An  act  of  gross  in- 

*  It  would  seem  that  no  one  but  an  Atheist  could  consistently  be  a  hypocrite, 
for  under  every  theory  of  a  future  state  of  rewards  and  punishments,  hypocrisy 
is  considered  a  most  grievous  sin.  Our  Lord  denounced  it  in  the  most  severe 
terms  :  "  Woe  unto  you  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  hypocrites."  And  Homer  puts 
into  the  mouth  of  one  of  his  heroes,  as  translated  by  Pope,  if  I  can  quote  him 
•orrectly,  these  strong  lines : 

"  Who  dares  think  one  thing  and  another  tell, 
My  soul  detests  him  as  the  gates  of  hell." 


MISCELLANEOUS    CONSIDERATIONS. 

justice  is  certain  to  be  vindicated  by  calumny  and  slander.  The 
victim  must  be  degraded,  to  justify  the  oppressor  ;  and  this  is 
but  the  result  of  the  "  despairing  necessities  of  falsehood."  It 
was  very  natural,  therefore,  to  resort  to  this  system  of  vindic- 
tive and  bitter  crimination  and  crafty  evasion.  The  taking  of 
property  that  did  not  belong  to  them,  but  really  had,  for  ages 
before,  belonged  to  others,  was  so  plain  and  palpable  a  violation 
of  the  principles  of  eternal  justice,  that  nothing  could  extenuate 
it,  even  in  appearance,  but  the  utmost  delinquency  on  the  part 
of  the  plundered  victim.  And  the  most  vindictive,  bitter,  and 
relentless  animosity  will  always  be  found  with  those  who  them- 
selves have  grievously  wronged  others,  from  mercenary  mo- 
tives. 

In  this  way  the  "  channels  of  history,"  as  Mr.  Nightingale 
truly  says,  were  originally  "  grossly r,  not  to  say  wickedly,  cor- 
rupted." Or,  in  the  language  of  another  distinguished  writer, 
(if  I  can  quote  from  recollection  correctly,)  "  modern  history 
has  been  one  grand  conspiracy  against  truth."  Speaking  of 
Bishop  Burnet's  History,  Dr.  Johnson  said  :  "  Burnet's  History 
of  his  own  times  is  very  entertaining.  The  style,  indeed,  is 
mere  chit-chat.  I  do  not  believe  that  Burnet  intentionally  lied ; 
but  he  was  so  prejudiced,  that  he  took  no  pains  to  find  out  the 
truth.  He  was  like  a  man  who  resolved  to  regulate  his  time  by 
a  certain  watch  ;  but  will  not  inquire  whether  the  watch  is  right 
or  not."  (Boswell.) 

This  system  of  misrepresentation  created  in  the  minds  of  the 
great  mass  of  Protestants  that  sort  of  credulity  which  is  the 
sure  and  never-failing  mark  of  prejudice,  namely  :  a  predisposi- 
tion to  believe  any  and  every  thing  horrible  and  absurd  in  the 
doctrines  and  practices  of  religious  opponents,  upon  the  mere 
reiteration  of  bold  assertion.  This  prejudice  extended  to  all 
classes ;  and  grew  up  with  the  ministers,  as  well  as  with  the 
members.  The  ministers  and  writers  among  Protestants  have 
preached  and  written  for  this  class  of  hearers  and  readers  gen- 
erally. And  it  is  a  melancholy  truth,  that  those  preachers  and 
writers  who  have  been  most  bitter  and  uncharitable.  b.-ive  gen- 
erally been  the  most  popular,  and  the  most  honored  and  patron- 
ized. This  tribute  to  prejudice  and  bitterness  has  naturally 
called  into  prominent  activity  too  many  preachers  and  writers 


MISCELLANEOUS   CONSIDERATIONS.  697 

of  that  reckless  character  ;  and  those  again  have  reacted  upon 
their  readers  and  hearers. 

By  such  means,  and  such  instruments,  prejudice  is  still  kept 
up  ;  and  prejudice  is  ever  unreasonable.  It  always  reverses  the 
rules  of  logic  and  reason,  and  loves  a  smart  sophism  much 
better  than  a  sound  argument.  In  violation  of  that  great  rule 
of  law  and  right  reason,  as  laid  down  by  Starkie,  in  his  treatise 
on  Evidence,  that  "  the  more  atrocious  the  nature  of  the  crime 
is,  the  more  repugnant  it  is  to  the  common  feelings  of  human 
nature,  the  more  improbable  it  is  that  it  has  been  perpetrated 
at  all,"  this  unfortunate  state  of  mind  will  believe  a  charge  the 
more  readily,  because  of  its  unnatural  atrocity  and  absurdity, 
and  the  improbability  of  its  being  committed  by  such  numbers, 
and  under  such  circumstances.  Consequently,  when  the  Tales 
of  Maria  Monk  were  published,  they  were  read  and  believed 
with  eagerness  by  too  many  Protestants,  and  even  by  Protestant 
ministers.  Had  such  a  mass  of  vilification  been  published 
against  any  other  body  of  professed  Christians,  no  one  would 
have  believed  it.  This  eagerness  to  hear  and  believe  such 
stories  and  calumnies  is  the  sure  test  of  a  diseased  state  of 
mind.  You  may  take  two  persons,  one  impartial,  and  the  other 
prejudiced,  and  you  may  inform  them  of  a  charge  against  the 
members  of  an  opposing  party  or  Church,  imputing  very  base 
misconduct,  and  the  impartial  man  will  require  proof,  clear  and 
strong,  in  proportion  to  the  enormity  of  the  offence,  and  will 
believe  it  with  regret,  while  the  dupe  of  prejudice  will  jump  to 
a  conclusion  of  guilty,  with  a  joy  and  alacrity  in  proportion  as 
the  offence  is  grievous,  and  the  evidence  doubtful ;  especially 
when  the  charge  is  of  some  secret  crime,  that  requires  a  smart 
man  to  find  it  out.  And  I  have  often  remarked,  in  the  course 
of  my  reading  and  observation,  that  charges  of  dark,  secret,  and 
unnatural  crimes  are  most  readily  believed  by  prejudiced  per- 
sons in  every  grade  of  life. 

It  is  this  prejudice  on  the  part  of  too  many  Protestant 
writers  and  readers  which  prevents  them  from  examining  Cath- 
olic authorities  for  Catholic  doctrines.  They  blindly  follow 
others  who  have  gone  before  them. 

But  another  reason  which  prevents  even  just  and  unpreju- 
diced Protestants  from  consulting  Catholic  standards  for  Catho- 


C98  MISCELLANEOUS    CONSIDERATIONS. 

lie  tenets,  is  the  melancholy  fact  that  these  misrepresentations 
of  the  Catholic  system  are  too  often  found  in  the  works  of 
Protestant  writers  of  distinguished  ability,  of  great  personal 
purity,  and  official  dignity ;  as  if  these  eminent  men  had  first 
carefully  built  up  such  a  reputation,  that  they  might  give  the 
more  permanence  and  force  to  their  misrepresentations.  In 
their  eminent  stations  they  had  been  scrupulously  just  and 
gentle  to  all  the  world  besides ;  as  if  reserving  all  their  injustice 
and  bitterness  for  one  single  object — the  Catholic  Church.  As 
examples,  I  will  mention  two  eminent  Bishops  of  the  Church  of 
England,  Porteus  and  Watson,  whose  extreme  and  bitter  mis- 
representations of  the  Catholic  faith  were,  indeed,  surprising. 
It  is  not  at  all  strange,  when  such  men  make  such  statements, 
that  they  should  be  implicitly  believed. 

That  this  general  continuance  of  misrepresenting  the  Catho- 
lic faith,  and  the  history  relating  to  it,  is  mainly  the  result  of 
a  true  ignorance  of  what  they  are,  is  not  only  shown  to  be  true 
by  the  fact  that  such  misrepresentations  exist  too  generally  to 
be  the  result  of  a  calm  and  deliberate  predetermination,  among 
the  majority  of  Protestant  writers  of  the  present  day,  to  commit 
so  grievous  a  moral  wrong,  not  to  say  crime ;  but  is  very  con- 
clusively proven  by  a  circumstance  stated  by  Bishop  Hughes, 
in  his  letter  to  Mr.  Breckenridge,  dated  March  25,  1833.  (Con. 
H.  &  B.,  70  :) 

"  Since  your  allusion  to  Bishop  Kendrick  has  led  me  into 
this  episode,  I  may  as  well  close  it  with  a  little  incident  which 
occurred  to  myself  last  spring,  and  does  not,  therefore,  depend 
on  '  information.'  I  happened  to  go  into  the  session-room  of 
the  '  General  Assembly,'  and  found  the  *  Bishops '  engaged  in 
settling  a  question  which  I  soon  discovered  to  be  interesting  • 
viz.,  'whether  baptism,  administered  by  a  Catholic  priest,  is 
valid ! '  A  committee,  it  seems,  had  been  appointed  to  draw 
up  a  report,  which  was  being  read  when  I  entered.  The  com- 
mittee had  decided  in  the  negative,  and  in  support  of  this  de- 
cision, reported  a  variety  of  reasons,  with  two  of  which  I  was 
particularly  struck.  One  was  that  they  (Catholic  priests)  bap- 
tize in  Latin ;  as  if  infants  were  not  quite  as  well  acquainted 
with  this  language  as  with  any  other.  The  second  was,  that 
they  (Catholic  priests)  baptize  with  oil — a  discovery  reported 


MISCELLANEOUS   CONSIDERATIONS.  699 

on  the  authority  of  a  certain  doctor,  I  think,  of  Maryland.  It 
was  listened  to  with  great  but  silent  solemnity — although  there 
were  at  the  moment  Jive  baptismal  founts,  in  as  many  Catholic 
churches,  within  half  a  mile  of  where  the  Assembly  was  sitting ; 
and  though  it  is  known  to  all  the  world  that  the  Catholic  bap- 
tism is,  and  ever  has  been,  with  water,  I  retired  from  the  pres- 
ence of  these  l  Teachers  in  Israel,'  revolving  in  my  mind  the 
words  of  our  Blessed  Redeemer :  4  If  in  the  green  wood  they 
do  these  things,  what  shall  be  done  in  the  dry  ?  '  " 

Another  remarkable  case  occurred  in  Campbell  &  Purcell's 
Debate.  A  Catholic  priest  had  been  excommunicated  in  Phila- 
delphia some  years  before,  and  some  mischievous  wag  had 
copied  the  obscene  curses  found  in  Sterne's  "  Tristram  Shandy," 
and  had  them  published  in  a  newspaper  as  the  curses  pronounced 
against  the  expelled  priest.  Mr.  Campbell  was  deceived  by 
this  trick,  and  seriously  read  Sterne's  curses,  as  a  grievous 
charge  against  the  Catholic  Church. 

I  have  said  that  in  the  beginning  and  during  the  progress 
of  the  Reformation,  many  unprincipled  men  put  themselves  at 
the  head  of  that  movement ;  and  that  such  men  necessarily 
adopted  that  line  of  self-justification  which,  in  the  nature  of  the 
case,  would  be  most  successful.  And  while  a  greater  propor- 
tion of  unprincipled  men  was  found  among  the  early  writers  of 
the  Reformation,  it  is  undoubtedly  true,  that  many  of  the  same 
character  have  lived  and  nourished  since,  and  still  live  and 
flourish.  But  there  are  also  others,  who, 

"  Without  the  care  of  knowing  right  from  wrong, 
Always  appear  decisive,  clear,  and  strong ; 
Where  others  toil  with  philosophic  force, 
Their  nimble  nonsense  takes  a  shorter  course, 
Flings  at  your  head  conviction  in  a  lump, 
And  gains  remote  conclusions  at  a  jump." 

Then,  again,  there  is  a  large  class  of  Protestants,  who,  while 
they  will  not  themselves  positively  and  affirmatively  propagate 
these  misrepresentations  of  the  Catholic  faith,  will  still  wink  at 
them,  and  take  no  care,  and  make  no  effort,  to  prevent  or  cor- 
rect the  wrong.  They  are  entirely  passive,  while  they  see  the 
grossest  injustice  done,  and  seem  to  satisfy  their  consciences,  as 
Pilate  did  his,  when  he  washed  his  hands  and  declared  himself 


700  MISCELLANEOUS    CONSIDERATIONS. 

innocent  of  the  blood  of  Christ,  But  is  such  conduct  just  ?  Is 
it  not  the  bounden  duty  of  all  good  men  to  affirmatively  oppose 
falsehood,  and  prevent  injustice,  when  in  their  power?  Will 
such  morality  stand  the  stern  and  rigid  test  of  the  great  Judg- 
ment? 

§  3.  Reflections. 

But  this  system  of  misrepresentation  of  Catholic  doctrines, 
practices,  and  intentions,  so  general  among  Protestant  writers, 
gave  rise,  in  my  mind,  to  very  serious  questions.  Why  did 
SUCCESS  originally  require  such  a  line  of  argument  ?  Why 
did  truth  require  such  a  support  ?  Why  was  such  a  course  pre- 
ferred in  support  of  an  alleged  true  system  ?  And  why  is  it 
still  necessary  ?  Are  bad  arguments  more  effective  than  good  ? 
Is  misrepresentation  better,  in  a  good  cause,  than  candor  and 
truth  ?  If  the  doctrines  really  held  by  Catholics  were  so  false, 
erroneous,  and  absurd,  did  they  need  exaggeration  to  cause 
their  rejection  ?  Does  the  grossest  error,  or  error  of  any  kind, 
require  to  be  darkened  beyond  its  real  demerits,  to  make  it 
hated  and  despised  ?  And  is  it  necessary  to  prepare  the  human 
mind  for  the  reception  of  truth,  that  it  should  first  be  filled  with 
falsehood  ?  Do  you  sow  weeds  before  you  sow  good  grain  ?  Is 
it  necessary,  to  inculcate  charity,  that  you  should  first  give  a 
proof  of  its  absence,  in  the  party  who  inculcates  it  ?  And  if 
you  wish  to  put  down  falsehood,  is  it  necessary,  by  your  own 
act,  to  show  its  utility  and  necessity  ?  True,  it  is  a  practical 
rule  with  too  many  to  use  falsehood  against  alleged  falsehood, 
according  to  the  common  maxim,  that  you  must  oppose  the 
Devil  with  fire.  But  is  this  Christianity  ?  Is  it  true  philoso- 
phy ?  On  the  contrary,  is  it  not  the  doctrine  of  revenge  ?  the 
practice  of  savages  ?  the  chief  maxim  of  morality  among  wolves 
and  tigers  ?  And  if  you  wish  to  vanquish  the  Evil  Spirit  and 
his  bad  cause,  had  you  not  better  fight  him  with  something  the 
opposite  of  that  which  he  uses  himself?  Had  you  not  better 
oppose  evil  with  good  ? 

But  does  not  this  NECESSITY  arise  from  other  causes  ?  Is 
it  because  there  is  a  unity,  a  force,  a  beauty,  in  the  Catholic 
system,  that  renders  it  logically  impregnable  ?  Is  it  because  it 
is  so  conformable  to  the  truth  of  Christianity,  JUST  AS  IT  IS, 


MISCELLANEOUS   CONSIDERATIONS.  701 

and  not  as  the  passions,  interests,  and  pride  of  men  would  make 
it,  that  the  Catholic  theory  is  so  much  misrepresented  and 
despised?  Why  is  it  that  every  proud  innovator  upon  a  per- 
manent system — every  wild  fanatic — every  demagogue  in  reli- 
gion— every  sect,  and  the  broken  fragments  of  every  sect,  from 
Simon  Magus  to  the  present  time,  have  one  and  all  been  down 
upon  the  Old  Church  ? 

It  is  true,  it  is  an  exclusive  system.  Every  true  system 
must  be  so.  It  is  a  system  of  humility,  of  penance,  and  of  self- 
mortification  and  restraint.  And  these  features  are  exceedingly 
distasteful  to  human  nature.  The  Catholic  does  claim  to  be 
the  sole  true  Church ;  not  a  mere  part  and  parcel  of  it.  She 
acts  as  if  she  was  such.  She  is  as  exclusive  as  truth — as  stub- 
born as  fact.  She  has  no  compromise  to  make — none  to  offer — 
none  to  accept.  Like  an  immovable  mountain,  you  must  go  to 
her.  She  adapts  not  her  faith  to  suit  changing  circumstances,  01 
the  whims  of  men,  or  the  temper  of  the  times.  Her  terms  are  the 
same  to  all.  If  the  great  Napoleon  sins  at  the  head  of  his  victo- 
rious legions,  he  is  excommunicated.  If  the  mighty  Henry  the 
VIHth  did  labor  for  her,  and  did  great  service  in  her  cause, 
and,  therefore,  did  deserve  her  thanks ;  and  presuming  upon 
his  claims  and  influence,  asks  a  divorce  from  his  lawful,  injured, 
and  innocent  wife,  his  request  is  peremptorily  refused,  whatever 
may  be  the  consequences.  Gratitude  does  not  demand  the 
sacrifice  of  truth.  Her  friends  must  be  content  with  justice. 
They  can  obtain  no  more.  The  true  faith  cannot  and  must  not 
be  sacrificed  for  individuals,  however  great.  She  teaches  that 
Christianity  cannot  be  improved — that  the  Church,  being  the 
work  of  Christ,  cannot  be  reformed.  If  a  man  is  proud,  he  can- 
not go  to  confession.  If  he  be  fond  of  luxury,  the  fasts  of  the 
Church  will  appear  exceedingly  absurd  and  oppressive.  ID 
short,  if  he  enters  her  confines,  he  must  make  great  present  sac- 
rifices. He  must  merge  his  individual  religious  importance  in 
that  of  the  Church,  as  one  whole.  And  this  constitutes  the 
true  distinction  between  the  impulses  of  immediate  self-interest 
and  holy  love  for  the  cause.  She  also  teaches  that  salvation 
and  glory  are  found  at  the  end  of  the  journey,  and  not  along 
the  path  of  travel.  And  she  also  teaches  this  alleviation,  that 
"  He  is  worthy  for  whom  we  should  do  this ; "  an''  that  heaven 


702  MISCELLANEOUS   CONSIDERATIONS. 

is  fully  worth  these  sacrifices,  and  cannot  be  gained  without 
enduring  great  crosses. 

And  are  not  these  characteristics  of  the  Catholic  Church  the 
true  cause  of  that  INEXORABLE  NECESSITY  which  forces 
her  opponents  to  fight  with  any  weapons  they  find  most  availa- 
ble, and,  therefore,  to  resort  to  this  ungenerous  system  of  mis- 
representation and  abuse  ?  True  it  is,  she  does  claim  superior- 
ity over  all  others.  And  this  claim  would  necessarily  wound 
their  pride.  This  is  natural.  It  was  so  of  old.  "Master,  thus 
saying,  thou  reproachest  us  also."  You  "  intend  to  bring  this 
man's  blood  upon  us."  From  the  very  nature  of  this  exclusive 
system,  it  must  arouse  this  peculiar  kind  of  resistance.  It 
stands  opposed  to  too  many  darling  wishes  and  impulses  not  to 
incur  this  most  bitter  and  unrelenting  opposition. 

And  it  was  so  with  Christianity  in  the  beginning.  "  Now 
the  first  thing  that  strikes  as,"  says  Dr.  Paley,  "  is,  that  the  re- 
ligion they  carried  with  them  was  exclusive.  It  denied  without 
reserve  the  truth  of  every  article  of  heathen  mythology,  the 
existence  of  every  object  of  their  worship.  It  accepted  no  com- 
promise ;  it  admitted  no  comprehension.  It  must  prevail,  if  it 
prevailed  at  all,  by  the  overthrow  of  every  statue,  altar,  and 
temple  in  the  world.  It  will  not  easily  be  credited  that  a  de- 
sign so  bold  as  this  could  in  any  age  be  attempted  to  be  carried 
into  execution  with  impunity."  (Ev.  of  Chis.) 

And  while  it  must  be  readily  confessed  that  Protestants  and 
Catholics  hold  more  doctrines  in  common  than  did  the  Heathens 
and  Christians  in  the  first  ages  of  Christianity,  still  the  Catholic 
Church  is  equally  exclusive.  She  cannot  sanction  a  mixed  the- 
ory of  truth  and  error.  She  requires  the  genuine,  and  refuses 
the  debased  coin.  She  too  "accepts  no  compromise" — she 
"  admits  no  comprehension."  And  the  fact  that  Protestants 
consider  themselves  Christians,  while  they  are  regarded  by  the 
Catholic  Church  as  heretics,  is,  of  itself,  the  more  calculated  to 
produce  this  system  of  opposition.  And  this  rigid  and  consist- 
ent adherence  to  her  faith — this  intolerance,  as  it  is  called,  is 
the  ground  of  great  complaint  on  the  part  of  Protestants. 
"  The  faith  of  Rome,"  says  Dr.  Spring,  "  must  be  received  im- 
plicitly, or  not  at  all."  (Dissertation  39.)  And  Dr.  Spring  is 
right  herein.  Her  faith  must  be  implicitly  received.  I  believe 


MI8CKLLANKOUS    CONSIDERATIONS.  703 

that  is  always  the  case  with  conscientious  truth.  If  she  is  the 
true  Church,  she  is  certainly  right  in  this.  If  she  is  not  the 
true  Church,  and  erroneously  claims  to  be  such,  she  still  has  the 
sense  to  be  consistent ;  she  has  still  one  great  and  indispensable 
mark  of  truth. 

But  Protestantism  is  not  exclusive.  Its  leading  principle, 
from  which  all  others  logically  and  necessarily  flow,  is  studiously 
adapted  to  flatter  individual  pride,  and  indulge  the  will.  Its 
soft  and  flexible  gum-elastic  character  admits  of  infinite  modifi- 
cations, without  any  efficient  checks,  and  easily  conforms  itself 
to  the  prevailing  sentiment  of  each  succeeding  age.  Progress 
and  Reform  being  its  leading  ends,  it  never  finds  rest,  so  long 
as  the  human  mind  loves  novelty,  and  seeks  excitement  in 
change.  This  flexibility  is  ftdly  shown  by  the  great  and  con- 
tinual shillings  from  the  doctrines  of  the  early  Reformers. 
Under  such  a  theory  it  is  very  true,  as  Pope  says  : 

"  Manners  with  fortunes,  humors  turn  with  climes, 
Tenets  with  books,  and  principles  with  times." 

And  is  it  not  most  wonderfully  surprising  that  the  Catholic 
Church,  with  all  her  alleged  superstitions,  corruptions,  errors  of 
faith,  absurd  doctrines,  whimsical  practices,  and  austere  ob- 
servances, with  the  superadded  and  accumulated  mass  of  dis- 
tortion and  exaggeration  of  these  alleged  evils,  still  cannot  be 
put  down — cannot  be  confuted — and  will  maintain  her  pre- 
eminence in  the  Christian  world  ?  There  is  something  most 
marvellous  in  all  this.  God  must  have  concerned  Himself  in 
this  matter.  And  as  Blanco  White  says : 

"  If  the  mass  of  Christians  must  submit  to  the  decision  of 
another  authority,  by  whatever  name  it  may  be  called,  the 
Church  of  Home  can  fear  no  rival.  You  may  raise  doubts 
against  its  supremacy.  But  how  very  few  minds  of  a  pious 
character  will  not  be  overpowered  by  the  pre-eminence  of  Home 
in  the  Christian  world  f  "  (Cited  in  Fletcher's  Notes  to  Fene- 
lon's  Letter  on  the  Use  of  the  Bible.) 

And  Mr.  White,  though  a  decided  Protestant,  might  well 
say  what  he  did.  True,  you  may  "  raise  doubts "  against  any 
thing.  You  may  raise  doubts  against  Christianity.  The  Chris- 
tian religion  is  not  so  plain  as  to  be  wholly  free  from  doubt  in 


704:  MISCELLANEOUS    CONSIDERATIONS. 

unwilling  minds.  I  cannot  conceive  what  merit  there  could  be 
in  faith,  what  room  there  would  be  left  for  the  fair  exercise  of 
humility,  if  the  proofs  of  Christianity  were  so  overwhelming  as 
to  demonstrate  its  truth  to  all  men.  There  is  ample  proof  to 
satisfy  the  honest,  patient,  and  diligent  inquirer,  while  there  is 
enough  of  doubt  to  perplex  the  proud  and  suspicious — the  dis- 
honest and  the  selfish — the  thoughtless  and  the  negligent — and 
especially  those  prevaricating 

"  Philosophers  who  darken  and  put  out 
Eternal  truth,  by  everlasting  doubt." 

So  it  is  with  respect  to  the  Catholic  system.  You  may 
raise  doubts  and  cavils  over  many  points ;  and  the  less  you 
really  know  of  the  system,  the  more  of  these  cavils  you  can 
raise.  You  may  interpose  bold,  brief,  and  sophistical  positions, 
inferences,  and  deductions;  but,  after  all,  they  cannot  weigh 
against  the  clear,  great,  and  decisive  principles  and  facts  which 
sustain  it.  And  after  all  the  bitterness  with  which  she  hag 
been  assailed  ;  and  after  all  the  cavils  and  objections  that  human 
wit,  sharpened  by  interested  animosity,  or  habitual  prejudice, 
has  been  able  to  raise,  or  may  be  yet  able  to  raise,  who  would 
not,  at  last,  rather  die  in  the  communion  of  this  old,  calumni- 
ated, suffering,  and  yet  invincible  Church  ?  Old  House  of  God, 
I  love  thee  !  And  the  reason  why,  I  have  told,  and  will  tell. 

§  4.  How  did  these  alleged  errors  get  into  the  Church,  and 
when  f 

One  of  the  most  deep  and  serious  questions  that  arose  in  my 
mind  was  this :  How  and  when  did  these  alleged  absurd,  un- 
scriptural,  and  disgusting  errors  get  into  the  Church  ? 

In  my  investigations  I  began  at  the  beginning,  and  consid- 
ered the  Church  as  it  came  from  the  hands  of  the  apostles. 
By  the  consent  of  all  parties,  the  apostles  did  their  duty,  and 
taught  all  the  truth,  and  no  more.  They  left  the  Church  in  the 
hands,  and  under  the  government,  of  those  officers  they  them- 
selves  had  personally  instructed  and  appointed.  That  they 
generally  made  good  and  worthy  appointments,  I  had  no  doubt. 
That  those  they  appointed  were  properly  instructed,  I  could 
not  question.  The  Church  left  by  them  needed  no  improve- 


MISCELLANEOUS    CONSIDERATIONS.  705 

ment,  and  did  certainly  know  what  her  faith  was.  In  the  con- 
templation of  the  Protestant  theory,  each  member  had  been 
carefully  taught  the  right  of  private  interpretation  in  the  last 
resort,  and  each  member  knew  that  those  most  grievous  errors, 
as  alleged,  were  contrary  to  the  known  faith,  daring  innovations 
upon  the  truth,  and  degrading  invasions  of  private  rights.  The 
Church  was  spread  over  the  entire  Roman  Empire  ;  and  nu- 
merous Churches  existed  as  branches  of  THE  CHURCH,  in  all 
of  which  the  faith,  once  delivered,  had  been  carefully  taught 
and  deposited.  It  was  in  the  best  days  of  Roman  literature, 
when  those  arts  best  calculated,  in  their  nature,  to  develop 
the  reasoning  faculties,  were  most  fully  cultivated,  and  most 
generally  diffused.  And  this  state  of  things  continued  until  the 
destruction  of  the  Roman  Empire  in  the  West,  by  the  Goths, 
Vandals,  and  other  barbarous  hordes  in  the  fifth  century.  The 
first  three  centuries  were  days  of  general  persecution,  with  in- 
tervals of  rest ;  while  in  the  fourth,  the  Church  was  alternately 
protected  and  oppressed  by  the  Roman  Emperors  ;  and  in  the 
fifth,  her  sufferings  were  extreme.  It  was  in  those  suffering 
ages  that  the  "  seed  took  root  amongst  the  stones  and  thorns, 
and  sprang  beneath  the  axe,  and  blossomed  in  the  blast " — it 
was  then  that  "  the  Circus  flowed  with  blood,  but  the  immortal 
Spirit  walked  the  red  surge  and  foam,  and  led  the  sinking  to 
eternal  rest " — and  it  was  then  that  twelve  millions  of  martyrs 
laid  down  their  lives, 

"  And  lift  their  raptured  looks  on  high, 
As  though  it  were  a  joy  to  die  " 

for  the  sublime  faith  of  Christ.  In  short,  the  Church  arose,  and 
continued  for  the  first  five  centuries,  in  an  enlightened  country, 
came  well  instructed,  widely  diffused,  and  yet  perfectly  united, 
from  the  hands  of  the  apostles. 

In  my  investigations  concerning  the  truth  of  Christianity 
itself,  I  met  with  no  line  of  argument  more  conclusive  and  un- 
answerable than  Leslie's  "  Short  and  Easy  Method  with  the 
Deists."  The  essence  of  that  argument  may  be  briefly  stated 
thus : 

1.  There  now  exists  a  certain  book,  which  states  that  at  a 
time  and  place  therein  mentioned,  certain  great,  notable,  and 
61 


706  MISCELLANEOUS    CONSIDERATIONS. 

visible  public  facts  occurred ;  and  that  at  the  same  time  and 
place,  a  certain  association  of  men  was  organized,  and  certain 
visible  observances  instituted  in  this  association  to  be  known  to, 
and  kept  by  all  the  members,  and  to  continue  from  that  time 
forward. 

2.  This  great  association  of  men  still  exists,  and  these  ob- 
servances are  still  kept  up,  and  we  know  the  fact. 

Now  to  prove  the  fact  that  these  observances,  and  this  or- 
ganization began  at  the  time  and  place  mentioned,  we  will  as- 
sume that  they  were  organized  and  instituted  at  some  time  and 
place,  for  the  association  is  now  in  being,  and  these  ordinances 
are  now  observed.  The  organization  of  this  body,  and  the  in- 
stitution of  those  observances,  are  plain  matters  of  historical 
fact,  and  can  be  known ;  and  whenever  they  did  take  place,  the 
fact  must  have  been  known,  from  the  very  nature  of  the  case. 
Can  any  one  show  that  this  organization,  and  the  institution  of 
these  visible  observances,  were  commenced  at  any  other  time  ? 
If  they  originated  at  one  time,  and  the  book  stated  they  origi- 
nated at  another  and  a  different  time,  then  there  would  be  a 
positive  contradiction,  and  the  falsehood  must  be  known.  Sup- 
pose this  association  did  not  exist,  and  the  observances  were  not 
instituted  by  the  persons,  and  at  the  time  and  place  stated,  and 
the  book  should  have  been  forged  at  a  later  date,  still  stating 
the  pre-existence  of  those  alleged  notorious  visible  facts,  would 
not  all  men  at  once  say?  "This  book  is  false  upon  the  face  of  it ; 
for  it  states  as  past  events,  things  that  no  one  ever  heard  of, 
and  all  our  own  experience  is  in  direct  and  palpable  conflict 
with  the  alleged  facts  recorded  in  this  book.  This  whole  thing 
is  new,  and  not  old,  as  stated;  and,  therefore,  must  be  false. 
Where  is  the  body  of  men  that  ever  did  keep  these  observances  ? 
Who  has  heard  of  them  before  ?  Who  has  ever  heard  of  this 
book  before  ?  These  alleged  facts  were  of  such  a  character  as 
to  attract  the  earnest  attention  of  all  men.  Who  can  believe 
that  they  could  have  existed,  as  alleged,  and  no  one  know  it  ?  " 

Inconsistency  is  a  sure  mark  of  falsehood,  and  is  understood, 
as  such,  by  all  men  of  every  country, 

"  By  saint,  by  savage,  and  by  sage." 

This  knowledge,  and  the  disposition  to  use  it,  are  found  in 


MISCELLANEOUS    CONSIDERATIONS.  707 

the  humblest  minds,  and  at  an  early  age,  even  in  children.  To 
weigh  and  compare  one  part  of  a  theory  with  another,  is  the 
natural  result  of  the  faculty  of  reason.  And  if  the  inconsistency 
be  plain  and  palpable,  it  will  never  be  overlooked,  and  never 
sanctioned,  unless  some  great  motive  exist  to  produce  this  re- 
sult. If  the  inconsistency  be  merely  theoretical,  requiring  a 
process  of  laborious  and  rational  deduction  to  detect  it,  or  if  it 
be  immaterial,  then  it  may  escape  detection  and  exposure  among 
the  great  mass  of  men. 

Dr.  Paley,  in  his  Evidences  of  Christianity,  says  : 
"  The  success  of  a  religion  founded  upon  a  miraculous  his- 
tory, shows  the  credit  that  was  given  to  the  history ;  and  this 
credit,  under  the  circumstances  in  which  it  was  given,  i.  e.,  by 
persons  capable  of  knowing  the  truth,  and  interested  to  inquire 
after  it,  is  evidence  of  the  reality  of  the  history,  and,  by  conse- 
quence, of  the  truth  of  the  religion,  *  *  *  *  But  it  will  be  said, 
if  one  religion  could  make  its  way  without  miracles,  why  might 
not  another  ?  To  which  I  reply,  first,  that  this  is  not  the  ques- 
tion ;  the  proper  question  is  not,  whether  a  religious  institution 
could  be  set  up  without  miracles,  but  whether  a  religion  or  a 
change  of  religion,  founding  itself  in  miracles,  could  succeed 
without  any  reality  to  rest  upon.  I  apprehend  these  two  cases 
to  be  very  different.  *  *  *  *  One  would  imagine,  to  hear  some 
men  talk,  or  to  read  some  books,  that  the  setting  up  of  a  relig- 
ion by  dint  of  miraculous  pretences,  was  a  thing  of  every  day's 
experience;  whereas  I  believe,  that,  except  the  Jewish  and 
Christian  religion,  there  is  no  tolerably  well-authenticated  ac- 
count of  any  such  thing  having  been  accomplished." 

It  is  evidently  true,  that  the  bare  success  of  a  religion,  with- 
out  regard  to  the  character  of  the  proofs  upon  which  it  assumes 
to  rest,  or  the  means  used  to  attain  this  success,  or  the  circum- 
stances attending  the  propagation  of  the  theory,  is  no  evidence 
of  the  entire  truth  of  the  system  itself.  All  religions  have  pre- 
vailed to  a  greater  or  less  extent ;  and  the  truth  is  undeniable, 
that  they  assume  to  rest  upon  different  grounds,  appeal  to  dif- 
ferent classes  of  proof,  were  propagated  by  different  means,  and 
under  different  circumstances ;  while  they  all  agree  in  some 
great  leading  features.  These  facts,  when  justly  considered, 
would  seem  to  lead  clearly  to  these  conclusions : 


708  MISCELLANEOUS    CONSIDERATIONS. 

1.  That  man,  by  a  law  of  his  own  nature,  impressed  upon  him 
by  the  Creator,  is  a  religious  being.     From  this  law  he  knows 
that  he  is  a  subordinate  being — that  there  exists  a  Supreme  In- 
telligent  Cause — and  that  the  natural  relation  existing  between 
the  Creating,  and  the  created,  Intelligence,  entitles  the  former 
to  the  adoration  and  obedience  of  the  latter.     This  knowledge 
of  his  duty,  derived  from  this  law  of  his  nature,  though  limited 
AS  it  is,  is  still  sufficient  to  put  him  upon  inquiry,  and  makes  the 
duty  of  further  inquiry,  obligatory.     It  is  a  well-known  princi- 
ple of  law,  applicable  to  certain  classes  of  cases,  that  when  a 
party  is  entitled  to  notice  of  certain  facts,  and  has  not  notice  of 
them  in  full,  but  has  sufficient  notice  to  put  him  upon  inquiry, 
by  a  reasonable  use  of  which  he  may  know  all  the  facts  he  has  a 
right  to  know  in  reference  to  the  alleged  matter,  then  the  law 
presumes  full  notice,  and  treats  the  party  accordingly. 

2.  That  man,  without  a  special  revelation,  could  never  know 
his  full  duty,  and  'his  true  destination. 

If,  then,  a  system  of  religion  should  be  proposed,  embracing 
the  first  great  truth  above  stated,  it  will  necessarily  attract  the 
attention  of  men,  and  lead  to  investigation.  If  the  theory  as- 
sume to  be  only  based  upon  reasoning,  or  secret  miracles,  the 
efficient  means  of  contradiction  are  not  given  by  the  theory  it- 
self; and  where  one  exists,  or  another  is  proposed,  at  the  same 
time,  the  choice  must  rest  between  bald,  desolate  Atheism,  or 
cold,  vague  Deism,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  system  already  ex- 
isting, or  the  one  proposed,  on  the  other.  As  man  cannot,  with- 
out a  direct  revelation,  arrive  at  all  the  features  of  the  true 
religion,  he  is  compelled,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  to  take  the 
best  offered,  or  reject  all.  And  as  it  must  be  a  very  bad  relig- 
ion, that  is  not  better  than  infidelity,  and  that  contains  less  of 
truth  in  it,  the  natural  religion  of  the  human  heart  and  mind 
will  generally  take  the  lesser  evil  of  the  two. 

But,  on  the  contrary,  if  a  new  religion,  or  any  material 
change  of  a  received  religion,  be  proposed,  and  such  religion  or 
change  be  based  upon  visible  miracles,  or  upon  any  other  simple 
and  easily  understood  basis,  the  natural  law  of  consistency  will 
induce  all  to  compare  the  system  or  change  proposed  with  the 
grounds  assumed  for  it  to  rest  upon.  The  means  of  detection 
are  given  in  both  cases  alike,  and  will  be  used  in  both.  If,  there. 


MISCELLANEOUS    CONSIDERATIONS.  709 

fore,  the  grounds,  as  given,  be  false,  or  the  thing  proposed  be 
inconsistent  therewith,  it  must,  and  will,  in  most  cases,  be  re- 
jected. The  human  mind  loves  consistency ;  this  love  is  one  of 
its  simplest  impulses  ;  and  when  referred  for  proof  to  that  which 
is  either  plainly  false,  or  clearly  inconsistent  with  the  theory  to 
be  established,  will  uniformly  turn  away,  and  seek  truth  in  some 
other  quarter,  unless  some  other  very  powerful  and  tempting 
motive  overrule  this  natural  result. 

From  the  admissions  of  all  parties — from  the  language  of  the 
Scriptures,  and  the  testimony  of  the  Fathers,  the  faith  once  de- 
livered was  to  remain  unchanged  to  the  end  of  time.  And  no 
sentiment  is  more  often  and  continuously  reiterated  and  affirmed 
than  this:  that  nothing  new  was  to  be  added,  and  nothing 
taken  away. 

The  Church,  as  it  came  from  the  hands  of  the  apostles,  was 
firmly  grounded  in  this  very  plain  and  important  fundamental 
position,  and  not  only  grounded  in  the  position  itself,  but  each 
member  did  know  what  was  taught — what  were  his  recognized 
and  established  rights — what  observances  were  in  the  Church 
and  uniformly  kept  by  all — and  what  doctrines,  ordinances,  and 
practices,  were  CLAMED  as  coming  from  the  apostles.  And 
with  this  plain  and  obvious  rule  in  the  mouths  of  all  the  teachers, 
and  of  all  the  lay  members,  and  with  this  knowledge  in  the 
memories  and  minds  of  all,  what  a  strange  and  unaccountable 
falsehood  it  was,  in  the  face  of  this  plain  principle,  and  of  these 
simple  and  known  facts,  to  assert  and  insist  that  these  new,  ab- 
surd, glaring,  and  unscriptural  tenets,  and  oppressive  ordinances, 
had  always  existed  in  the  Church — had  come  down  from  the 
apostles — were  old,  and  not  new — if  it  be  true,  as  Protestants 
contend,  that  these  daring  innovations  upon  an  admitted  un- 
changeable faith,  were  introduced  into  the  Church  by  fraud, 
covin,  and  deceit.  And  if  these  alleged  errors  were  introduced 
into  the  true  Church,  in  their  true  garb,  as  new,  how  perfectly 
inconsistent  they  were  with  the  known  faith,  and  the  plain  es- 
tablished rule ! 

TJiat  these  alleged  errors  were  of  a  character  to  arrest  the 
immediate  attention  of  all,  and  to  give  the  most  serious  shocks 
to  the  entire  system,  is  clear,  not  only  from  their  own  nature, 
but  from  the  strong  and  violent  denunciations  they  receive  from 


710  MISCELLANEOUS    CONSIDEKATIONS. 

Protestants  themselves.  If  errors  at  all,  they  were  certainly 
great  and  important.  They  made  a  change  in  the  system,  as 
palpable  and  important,  as  can  well  be  conceived:  a  change 
that  made  as  great  a  difference  between  the  old  and  the  new 
theory,  as  is  the  difference  between  fallibility  and  infallibility 
in  the  Church.  And  the  alleged  change  was  not  only  manifest 
and  plain,  but  the  means  of  detection,  confutation,  and  resist- 
ance, were  known  to,  and  within  the  reach  of,  all  the  members. 

Under  the  Protestant  view,  this  well-instructed,  widely-dif- 
fused, and  united  suffering  Church,  went  with  rapid  strides  from 
the  pure  faith  once  delivered,  into  the  most  grievous  errors ; 
and  by  the  absurd  change,  invo  Ived  herself  in  still  more  intense 
suffering  and  disgrace.  She  gave  up  the  great  fundamental 
right  of  private  interpretation  in  the  last  resort,  without  a  strug- 
gle ;  and  in  lieu  thereof  admitted  the  wicked  principle  of  actual 
governmental  infallibility  in  the  Church.  For  a  mere  commem- 
oration arid  intelligible  Eucharist,  she  received  the  absurd  dog- 
ma of  the  Real  Presence.  For  Christian  liberty,  she  obse- 
quiously received  humiliating  and  degrading  confession.  In 
the  place  of  rational  religion,  she  prayed  to  saints,  honored 
their  relics,  and  her  children  foolishly  received  the  sacrament  of 
Extreme  Unction  when  they  died.  And  not  only  did  she  add 
to  the  faith  the  most  grievous  errors,  and  oppressive  and  non- 
sensical observances,  but  she  actually  mistook  for  permanent 
powers,  those  mere  temporary  gifts  intended  tor  the  days  of  the 
apostles  alone.  Consequently,  when  they  departed,  the  Church 
at  once  forgot  their  words,  or  the  apostles  forgot  to  tell  her, 
that  Extreme  Unction  and  Miracles  were  to  cease.  She  seems 
to  have  been  suddenly  seized  and  stupefied  with  a  monomania 
to  assume  doctrines,  and  powers,  and  practices,  unwarranted  by 
the  Scriptures,  which  all  understood — wholly  incompatible  with 
her  received  teaching — inconsistent  with  her  plainest  maxims — 
and  oppressive  upon  her  children. 

And  why  did  she  do  so?  What  unaccountable  delusion 
could  so  deceive  her  ?  The  same  reasons  existed  then  against 

S 

these  errors,  if  errors  at  all,  as  exist  now.  The  same  permanent 
code  of  law  then  existed  as  now,  and  the  same  objections  would 
have  been  urged.  The  Christians  of  those  days  had  the  same 
impulses  of  human  nature,  and  must  have  entertained  the  s-ime 


MISCELLANEOUS   CONSIDE RATIONS.  711 

opposition  to  injury  and  oppression.  For  Mr.  Campbell  has 
well  said :  "  And  the  moment  that  B  propounds  his  synopsis 
with  the  slightest  air  of  authority,  in  the  way  of  exacting  obe- 
dience or  acknowledgment,  that  moment  there  is  something  in 
human  nature  that  whispers  in  A,  who  is  this  brother  B  ?  A 
fallible  like  myself!  A  great  man  he  may  be,  but  he  is  fond  of 
his  own  opinions,  and  prides  himself  upon  his  superiority.  I 
will  not  lay  a  victim  upon  his  altar,  nor  burn  incense  at  his 
shrine;  I,  too,  am  a  man,  and  will  yield  to  none  the  right  to 
dictate  to  me."  (C.  &  R.'s  Debate,  764.) 

And  human  nature,  my  old  friend  and  ancestor,  what  have 
you  to  say  ?  Are  you  guilty  or  not  guilty  ?  Did  you  know 
your  rights  ?  Did  you  know  the  law  ?  Had  you  any  instinct 
— any  faith — any  moral  courage  ?  Were  you  asleep  ?  or  wak- 
ing, did  you  willingly,  and  without  a  murmur,  and  against  all 
your  impulses  and  your  rights,  surrender  to  brother  B,  or  to 
any  other  brother  or  brethren  ?  If  so,  why  did  you  do  it  ? 
Tell  us,  if  you  please,  "old  soldier,  who  put  that  knapsack  on 
your  back  ?  "  and  how  was  it  done  ?  Tell  us,  gentle  bird,  who 
caught  and  caged  you  ?  Tell  us,  pale  and  wasted  prisoner,  who 
put  those  shackles  upon  your  manly  limbs,  and  that  rope  around 
your  neck  ?  Tell  us,  sighing  patriot,  who  drove  the  iron  of 
despotism  into  your  soul,  and  made  you  a  slave  ?  And  why 
did  you  not  resist  and  die  in  the  last  ditch  ?  Why  did  you  not 
cry  aloud  and  spare  not  ?  What  commotion  did  you  make  ? 
What  resistance  did  you  offer  ?  And  if  you  did  offer  any, 
where  is  the  proof  of  that  fact  to  be  found  ?  Has  history  en- 
tirely neglected  you?  Your  delinquency  has  certainly  been 
very  great,  if  these  charges  against  you  be  true.  You  followed 
dictation  so  blindly — surrendered  so  easily — abandoned  your 
rights,  and  those  of  truth,  so  promptly — abjured  your  faith  so 
readily — and  suffered  yourself  to  be  bound  and  manacled,  hand 
and  foot,  with  a  spirit  so  craven,  that  you  deserve  no  commis- 
eration. "Who  is  there  to  mourn  for  Logan?  Not  one." 
True  it  is,  that  some  of  your  children,  while  they  darkened 
your  memory  and  aspersed  your  character,  waked  up,  after 
some  thirteen  or  fifteen  centuries  of  sleep,  and  assumed  to  re- 
assert your  abandoned  rights, 

"  And  things  unknown,  proposed  as  things  forgot." 


712  MISCELLANEOUS    CONSIDERATIONS. 

§  5.   The  same  subject  further  considered. 

Upon  the  basis  that  these  alleged  errors  were  truly  such, 
the  Christians  of  that  period,  when  they  were  introduced,  had 
less  difficulties  in  their  way  than  had  modern  Protestants. 
They  were  in  a  good  condition — their  path  was  plain — their 
skies  were  clear.  To  oppose  these  alleged  errors,  they  were 
not  forced  into  the  melancholy  position  of  a  practical  abandon- 
ment of  Christ's  promises  to  His  Church.  They  were  not  forced 
to  admit,  in  effect,  that  the  gates  of  hell  had  prevailed  against 
her.  They  were  not  bound  to  sustain  their  position  by  bring- 
ing against  their  predecessors  charges  of  high  crimes  against 
God  and  His  Christ.  It  was  not  necessary  for  them  to  assume, 
that  for  eight  hundred  years  and  more,  whole  Christendom, 
both  clergy  and  laity,  were  drowned  in  idolatry  and  heresy. 
They  were  relieved  from  the  unavailing  and  fruitless  search, 
among  the  silent  records  of  the  past,  for  ancestors  of  their  faith  ; 
and  it  was  not  incumbent  upon  them,  either  to  abandon  all 
visible  connection  with  the  apostles,  or  to  supply  the  defective 
records  of  history,  and  refresh  the  memory  of  past  ages,  by 
mere  construction  of  the  law,  which  had  itself  been  promulgated 
"before  the  alleged  historical  events  are  assumed  to  have  hap- 
pened. Their  invention  was  not  put  to  the  torture,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  discovering  some  new  and  plausible  theory  of  the 
Church,  reconcilable  with  their  anomalous  position.  And 'in 
reference  to  the  nature,  powers,  and  purposes  of  this  institution, 
there  was  no  necessity  to  assume  so  many  contradictory  and 
perplexing  theories.  In  short,  they  were  not  compelled  to  as- 
sume that  Christianity  had  been  a  practical  failure — that  its 
tendency  and  effect,  as  shown  and  attested  by  the  experience 
of  a  long  series  of  ages,  with  scarcely  a  solitary  exception,  were 
to  stupefy  the  human  mind — to  destroy  human  virtue — and  to 
render  its  professors  fit  subjects  for  impostors  and  victims. 

But  they  not  only  had  no  such  difficulties  in  their  way,  but 
they  had  advantages  and  plain,  simple  tests  of  truth,  that  the 
Reformers  had  not.  Until  these  alleged  errors,  or  some  of 
them,  were  introduced  into  the  Church,  she  was  pure  and  un- 
tainted. And  she  must  have  been  aware  of  this  state  of  case. 
All  preceding  ages  were  with  her  in  sentiment,  from  the  begin 


MISCELLANEOUS    CONSIDERATIONS.  713 

ning.  The  precedents  of  all  the  past  sustained  her.  They  were 
for,  and  not  against  her.  How,  then,  could  a  plain  and  griev- 
ous innovation  in  faith  or  observances  be  introduced,  and  her 
teachers  not  know  it  ?  To  condemn  such  an  error,  or  such  a 
practice,  it  was  only  necessary  to  recur  to  their  memories. 
Their  past  and  present  experience — the  simple  testimony  of  rec- 
ollection— was  sufficient  at  once  to  mark  the  error.  If  new,  it 
vrsia  false.  And  this  act  of  memory  was  a  test  in  possession  of 
all.  It  was  simple  and  certain.  Even  a  child  can  remember ; 
and  the  most  simple-minded  individual  can  know  what  he  has 
seen  and  heard  all  his  life.  A  man  can  also  know  whether  he 
believes  a  certain  doctrine.  He  may  not  be  certain  that  the 
doctrine  is  true ;  but  among  the  simple  matters  of  fact  which 
he  can  know,  is  the  fact  whether  he  believes  it  to  be  true. 

It  is  upon  this  plain  testimony  of  memory  and  experience, 
that  Leslie's  argument  in  answer  to  the  charge,  that  the  Scrip- 
tures were  forged  in  ages  after  the  rites  were  said  to  have  been 
instituted,  is  based.  And  he  insists,  with  unanswerable  power, 
that  the  fabricators  of  this  alleged  forgery  could  never  have 
made  the  Jews  "  believe,  in  spite  of  their  invariable  experience 
to  the  contrary,  that  they  had  received  these  books  long  before 
from  their  fathers,  had  been  taught  them  when  they  were 
children,  and  had  taught  them  to  their  own  children  ;  that  they 
had  been  circumcised  themselves,  had  circumcised  their  families, 
and  uniformly  observed  the  whole  minute  detail  of  sacrifices 
and  ceremonies ;  that  they  had  never  eaten  any  swine's  flesh, 
or  other  prohibited  meats,"  &c. 

And  is  not  this  line  of  argument  equally  applicable  to  the 
case  in  hand  ?  In  the  case  of  the  Jews,  the  difficulty  was  to 
convince  them,  contrary  to  their  positive  experience,  and  the 
simple  testimony  of  their  memories,  that  they  had  long  pos» 
sessed  a  book,  claiming  to  be  ancient,  but,  in  fact,  then  for  the 
first  time  introduced,  and  had  long  actually  believed  and  prac- 
tised the  doctrines,  and  kept  the  observance  therein  mentioned. 
And  in  the  case  of  the  alleged  Catholic  errors,  the  insuperable 
difficulty  was,  to  make  the  Christians  believe  that  they  had  al» 
ways  held  doctrines  then  first  promulgated  and  never  heard  of 
before,  and  had  always  kept  observances  that  no  one  in  the 
Church  had  ever  seen  performed.  In  such  a  case,  the  gray- 


714  MISCELLANEOUS    CONSIDERATIONS. 

haired  and  venerable  members  of  the  Church,  in  every  part  of 
the  world,  would  have  risen  up  as  one  man,  and  said  :  "We 
have  been  members  of  the  Church  for  many  years — we  never 
heard  of  such  a  doctrine — we  never  witnessed  such  a  practice. 
It  is  new,  inconsistent,  and  false." 

And  for  the  sake  of  illustration  we  will  take  the  doctrine 
and  practice  of  Confession.  It  is  a  doctrine  not  flattering  to 
human  pride — not  palatable  to  human  nature.  The  practice  is 
equally  repugnant  to  that  "  something  in  human  nature "  re- 
ferred to  by  Mr.  Campbell ;  and  this  practice  is  remarkably 
plain,  and  easily  understood  and  remembered.  How,  then, 
were  the  Christians  persuaded  to  submit  to  both  the  doctrino 
and  practice  of  that  which  was  not  only  false  in  itself,  but  con- 
trary to  the  universal  and  fundamental  rule  to  reject  all  innova- 
tions upon  the  known  and  established  faith  ?  How  were  they 
made  to  believe,  contrary  to  their  invariable  experience,  that 
these  things  had  always  been  in  the  Church  ?  How  was  human 
nature  so  completely  overcome  ?  That  which  shocked  all  com- 
mon sense — falsified  all  experience,  and  yet  claimed  to  be  old 
and  familiar — that  which  was  new,  repugnant,  arrogant,  op- 
pressive, and  disgusting,  was  palmed  upon  the  universal  Church 
without  difficulty  or  resistance  !  How  could  this  be  possible  ? 
If  this  could  have  been  done,  what  could  not  have  been  done  ? 
Can  we  fix  any  limits  at  all  to  human  imposition,  or  to  human 
credulity  ?  And  because  we  of  the  present  day  know  that  we 
possess  some  memory  and  mind,  is  that  any  reason  why  we 
should  substantially  assume  the  entire  oblivion  of  these  faculties 
in  our  Christian  ancestors  ?  Suppose  that  all  the  Elders,  with- 
out exception,  among  the  Disciples,  were  to  rise  up,  and,  with 
one  united  voice  and  effort,  endeavor  to  introduce  Infant  Bap- 
tism among  them,  upon  the  ground  that  it  had  always,  from  the 
beginning,  been  a  practice  with  them — and  suppose  that  they 
should  each  continuously  assert  this  to  the  day  of  the  death  of 
the  last  one  of  them,  could  they  convince  a  single  individual 
that  they  were  right  ?  If  they  sought  to  introduce  it  upon  the 
ground  that  it  never  had  been  the  faith  and  practice  of  their 
Church,  but  should  have  been,  and  that  in  this  respect  they  had 
before  erred  in  construing  the  Scriptures,  then  they  might  per- 
haps, even  contrary  to  their  former  teaching,  convince  some 


MISCELLANEOUS    CONSIDERATIONS.  715 

members.  This  would  be  consistent  with  the  basis  of  private 
interpretation  in  the  last  resort ;  and,  consequently,  of  the  con- 
tinued refbrmability  of  the  Church.  But  you  might  as  well  at- 
tempt to  establish  a  religion  assuming  to  found  itself  upon  visi 
ble  miracles,  when,  in  fact,  there  were  no  miracles,  as  to  hope 
to  introduce  new  doctrines  and  observances  as  old  and  well 
known.  In  both  cases  the  thing  proposed  is  wholly  inconsistent 
with  the  recognized  basis  upon  which  it  assumes  to  rest,  and  in 
direct  contradiction  to  the  plainest  tests  of  truth — the  evidence 
of  all  our  senses  in  the  one  case,  and  of  our  memory  and  posi- 
tive experience  in  the  other. 

There  was  another  weighty  reflection  that  forced  itself  upon 
my  mind,  and  which  was  this :  That  these  alleged  errors  were 
additions  to  the  faith,  not  subtractions  from  it.  In  the  view  of 
Protestants  the  following  tenets  are  held  to  be  pure  ADDI- 
TIONS to  the  faith  once  delivered  ;  namely :  The  Infallibility 
of  the  Church,  The  Primacy  of  St.  Peter,  The  Sacramerits  of 
Confirmation,  Penance,  Matrimony,  Extreme  Unction,  and  Holy 
Orders,  and  the  doctrines  of  Tradition,  Transubstantiation, 
Purgatory,  Invocation  of  Saints,  Prayers  for  the  Dead,  and  the 
continuance  of  miracles  in  the  Church.  And  in  the  view  of 
those  who  reject  Infant  Baptism,  and  baptism  by  pouring  or 
sprinkling,  these  were  also  pure  additions.  In  reference  to  one 
or  two  of  the  sacraments  mentioned  above,  a  portion  of  the 
Protestant  world  agreed  with  the  Catholic  Church.  This  list 
of  alleged  errors  is  certainly  very  formidable  ;  and  the  crimes 
therein  stated  are  grievous  enough,  and  their  alleged  introduc- 
tion sufficiently  inconsistent  in  a  Church  always,  at  all  times, 
and  in  all  places  CLAIMING  only  to  teach  that  which  had  al- 
ways been  received  in  one  unbroken  and  continuous  line  of  suc- 
cession from  the  apostles.  Such  a  mighty  mass  of  imposition, 
if  imposition  at  all,  is  entirely,  under  the  existing  circumstances, 
without  any  parallel  in  human  history. 

But  I  must  say  that  the  peculiar  character  of  these  alleged 
errors  (being  mere  alleged  additions)  made  it  the  more  difficult 
to  understand  how  they  did  get  into  the  Church.  The  ad- 
mitted and  undeniable  fact,  that  the  Church  had  lost  none  of 
the  original  deposit  of  faith — that  she  had,  at  least,  preserved 
all,  if  she  had  added  more,  did,  to  my  mind,  prove  her  vigilance 


716  MISCELLANEOUS   CONSIDERATIONS. 

and  integrity.  For  had  she  been  either  negligent  or  corrupt, 
she  would  have  lost  some  doctrines,  particularly  such  as  were 
above  human  comprehension,  and  such  as  required  humiliating 
sacrifices.  Her  alleged  innovations,  however,  did  not  run  in 
that  line,  but  in  that  of  vigilance.  Ever  wakeful  and  honest  in 
preserving  all  that  was  left  to  her,  she  is  assumed,  at  the  same 
time,  to  have  been  equally  wakeful  and  dishonest  in  the  addi- 
tion of  absurd  and  false  doctrines  and  oppressive  ordinances. 
There  were  in  the  Church,  according  to  this  theory,  vigilance 
and  honesty  to  preserve,  and,  at  the  same  time,  vigilance  and 
dishonesty  to  innovate. 

"  In  the  moral,  as  in  the  natural  world,  it  is  change  that  re- 
quires a  cause.  Men  are  easily  fortified  in  their  old  opinions, 
driven  from  them  with  great  difficulty."  So  says  Dr.  Paley  in 
his  Evidences  of  Christianity.  And  the  learned  divine  might 
have  well  added,  that  this  change  is  still  the  more  difficult 
when  produced  by  additions,  than  when  the  effect  of  mere  neg- 
ligence. Affirmative  change  is  the  more  difficult.  And  when 
this  affirmative  change  is  inconsistent  with  the  plain  and  well- 
understood  basis  upon  which  the  system  itself  assumes  to  rest, 
and  when  it  is  against,  not  only  the  old  opinions  and  received 
maxims  of  individuals,  but  also  their  interests,  and  their  ac- 
knowledged rights,  then,  indeed,  the  difficulty  becomes  insur- 
mountable. If  you  ask  a  person  to  rise  earlier,  and  do  more 
work  in  the  day  than  he  has  been  accustomed  to,  you  will  bo 
apt  to  incur  very  strong  opposition,  and  very  forcible  reasons 
will  be  required  to  produce  the  change.  But,  on  the  contrary, 
if  you  require  less,  you  will  scarcely  offend  him.  He  will  most 
readily  sleep  later,  and  do  less  work. 

And  if  the  Church  could  make  any  change  in  the  faith,  I 
should  always  expect  to  find  it  in  the  negligent  loss  of  Nome 
mystery  above  reason,  or  of  some  humiliating  doctrine;  and 
practice.  It  certainly  is  the  impulse  of  human  nature,  to  get 
to  heaven  with  as  little  sacrifice  as  possible.  Whatever  is  above 
reason,  or  apparently  repugnant  to  it,  and  whatever  is  painful 
to  our  pride,  or  asks  a  sacrifice  of  any  kind,  would  be  most  apt 
to  be  lost  by  either  a  corrupt  or  negligent  Church.  To  omit 
a  doctrine  or  practice,  requires  no  affirmative  act.  It  requires 
nothing  but  inaction*  Negligence  will  bring  this  about.  You 


MISCELLANEOUS   CONSIDERATIONS.  717 

do  not  shock  men  by  requiring  them  to  believe  and  practise  that 
which  they  never  did  before.  All  you  do  is  to  let  their  faith, 
by  slow  degrees,  die  out. 

And  when  we  look  to  the  history  of  ancient  heresy,  we  shall 
find  that  it  generally  consisted  in  denials  and  rejections  of  re- 
ceived doctrines.  Hyraenaeus  and  Alexander  denied  all  future 
resurrection.  The  heretics  mentioned  by  St.  Ignatius,  denied 
the  reality  of  Christ's  body.  The  Arians  denied  His  divinity. 
The  Novatians  denied  the  efficacy  of  repentance.  The  Mani- 
chaeans  forbid  marriage,  and  prohibited  meats,  and  denied  the 
supremacy  of  the  one  God. 

And  when  we  look  into  the  principal  tenets  of  the  Reform- 
ers, we  shall  still  find  the  same  general  characteristic.  Their 
alleged  Reformation  consisted  in  denials  and  rejections  of  re- 
ceived doctrines  and  observances.  There  were  very  few,  if  any, 
doctrines  that  they  alleged  had  been  lost.  The  Catholic  Church 
only  required  too  much.  And  whether  these  denials  and  rejec- 
tions by  Protestants  be  heresy  or  not,  they  certainly  do  run  in 
the  most  natural  and  usual  line  of  error. 

But  the  most  insuperable  difficulty  with  me,  was  to  under- 
stand how  a  Church,  so  well  instructed — so  well  grounded  in 
the  true  faith — always  acting  upon  the  plain  principle  that  no 
additions  could  be  made  to  the  faith,  and  nothing  lost — a 
Church  so  vigilant  that  nothing  was,  in  fact,  lost — could  be  so 
far  deluded  and  deceived,  as  not  only  to  surrender  her  rights, 
her  faith,  and  her  integrity,  but  to  do  so  with  such  an  entire  and 
easy  unanimity,  as  to  cause  no  dissensions  in  tJie  Church.  If 
these  alleged  errors  possess  any  thing  like  the  enormity  attrib- 
uted to  them  by  Protestant  denunciation,  then  it  is  clear  be- 
yond a  doubt,  that  they  must  have  caused  a  mighty  rent  in  the 
Church,  or  she  must  have  lost  her  integrity,  and  each  and  all  of 
her  members  must  have  been  slaves  before  they  were  made  so 
by  these  alleged  errors. 

That  the  Church  was  vigilant  to  guard  the  deposit  of  faith, 
is  not  only  shown  by  the  conclusive  fact,  that  she  lost  none 
originally  given,  but  it  is  shown  by  the  history  of  the  Church 
itself.  St.  Clement,  Bishop  of  Rome,  in  the  first  century,  by 
his  Epistles  and  messengers,  healed  the  divisions  at  Corinth. 
St.  Ignatius  says  to  the  Trallians :  "I  exhort  you,  therefore, 


718  MISCELLANEOUS    CONSIDERATIONS. 

(yet  not  I  but  the  love  of  Jesus  Christ,)  to  use  only  the  Chris- 
tian nourishment,  and  to  abstain  from  the  strange  herb,  which 
is  heresy."  And  the  works  of  the  Fathers  are  full  of  proofs  of 
the  vigilance  of  the  Church.  And  we  have  the  most  full  and 
minute  lists  of  heretics,  including  even  the  most  obscure  sects ; 
and  yet  we  never  hear  of  any  divisions  caused  by  the  introduc- 
tion of  this  great  mass  of  alleged  error.  The  very  animated 
discussions  in  the  Church,  at  an  early  day,  as  to  the  time  of 
celebrating  Easter,  shows  her  care  and  anxiety  to  preserve 
unity,  even  in  matters  of  discipline.  The  .time  when  each 
heresy  arose,  by  whom  it  was  introduced,  and  its  distinctive 
characteristics,  are  all  given.  And  what  is  still  more  remarka- 
ble is  the  fact,  that  these  sects  agreed  with  the  Catholic  Church 
in  most  of  the  doctrines  condemned  by  Protestants,  and  sepa- 
rated from  the  Church  upon  grounds  conceded  by  Protestants 
to  have  been  erroneous.  And  the  topics  that  were  discussed, 
and  which  led  to  divisions  and  heresies  during  the  first  five  cen- 
turies of  the  Christian  era,  were  entirely  different  from  the 
questions  arising  between  Catholics  and  Protestants  of  the 
present  day,  except  the  fundamental  right  of  private  interpreta- 
tion in  the  last  resort,  without  which  there  could  exist  no 
dissent. 

"  The  three  most  ancient  topics  of  controversy,"  says  Dr. 
Paley,  "  were  the  authority  of  the  Jewish  constitution,  the 
origin  of  evil,  and  the  nature  of  Christ."  (Ev.  of  Chris.)  The 
learned  divine  then  gives  us  a  short  account  of  the  heretics,  to 
show  what  these  ancient  topics  were,  and  mentions  the  Basili- 
cans  in  A.  D.  120,  the  Yalentinians  125,  the  Carpocratians  a 
little  later,  the  Sethians  150,  the  Montanists  156,  the  Marcasians 
160,  Hermogenes  180,  Praxius  196,  Artimon  200,  Theodatus 
200,  Tatian  172,  Paul  of  Samosata  246,  the  Sabellians  246,  No- 
vatians  251,  the  Donatists  328,  the  Arians  about  300,  the  Pris- 
cillianists  378,  the  Pelagians  405.  The  learned  divine  mentions 
Origen  216,  as  the  author  of  some  new  opinions,  which  were 
condemned  by  the  Bishops  of  Rome  and  Alexandria.  And  the 
learned  author  goes  on  to  say  :  "  The  Millennium,  Novatianism, 
the  baptism  of  heretics,  the  keeping  of  Easter,  engaged  also  the 
attention  and  divided  the  opinions  of  Christians  at  and  before 
that  time,  (and,  by  the  way,  it  may  be  observed,  that  such  dis- 


MISCELLANEOUS   CONSIDERATIONS.  719 

putes,  though  on  some  accounts  to  be  blamed,  showed  how 
much  men  were  in  earnest  upon  the  subject.)"  And  in  speak- 
ing of  the  heretics  of  those  times,  Dr.  Paley  says :  "  I  think 
there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  the  number  of  these  bear  any 
considerable  proportion  to  the  body  of  the  Christian  Church." 

There  were,  then,  no  disputes  between  the  heretics  of  those 
ages  and  the  Catholics  about  the  matters  in  difference  between 
Protestants  and  Catholics,  with  the  exception  of  the  Rule  of 
Faith  ;  and  yet  "  men  were  in  earnest  upon  the  subject."  We 
then  know  the  questions,  and  the  persons  who  raised  them  in 
the  ancient  Church ;  and  if,  as  Mr.  Campbell  says,  "  Taylor  and 
others  have  shown  that  all  the  abominations  of  Popery  were 
hatched  in  the  second  century,"  and  that  the  "  Nicene  (creed) 
was  a  symbol  and  exponent  of  the  faith  of  the  whole  world  at  the 
beginning  of  the  fourth  century,"  (C.  and  R.'s  Debate,  423,  472,) 
how  shall  we  account  for  .the  extraordinary  insensibility  of  the 
Christians  of  those  days  ?  How  such  a  moral  phenomenon,  and 
such  silence  could  exist,  under  such  circumstances,  I  pretend 
not  to  understand. 

That  the  Catholic  doctrines  were  held  by  the  universal 
Church  of  the  first  five  centuries,  and  were  not  in  general  de- 
nied even  by  those  heretics,  whose  doctrines  Protestants  them- 
selves cannot  stand,  (except  as  to  the  Rule  of  Faith,)  would 
seem  to  be  clear  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt.  But  even  those 
who  would  deny  the  justice  of  this  conclusion,  must  still  con- 
cede the  unquestioned  fact,  that  these  Catholic  doctrines,  now 
disputed  by  Protestants,  were  held  and  maintained  by  the  great- 
est and  most  widely-known  Fathers  and  martyrs  of  those  days, 
as  well  as  by  the  councils  of  the  Church.  Why,  then,  was 
there  no  discussions,  no  divisions,  no  denials  by  others,  if  those 
doctrines  were  new,  disgusting,  revolting,  and  false?  We 
know  that  Origen  and  others  put  forth  certain  opinions  of  their 
own,  upon  a  few  points,  and  these  were  promptly  resisted,  and 
put  down.  Why  was  this  vigilance  not  exercised  in  resisting 
the  introduction  of  the  alleged  Catholic  errors  ? 

And  that  the  alleged  introduction  of  those  supposed  errors, 
caused  no  divisions  in  the  Church,  is  equally  clear  from  history. 
St.  Irena3us  says  in  the  second  century :  "  And  neither  do  the 
churches  founded  in  Germany,  nor  those  in  Spain,  in  Gaul,  in 


720  MISCELLANEOUS   CONSIDERATIONS. 

the  East,  in  Egypt,  in  Africa,  nor  in  the  regions  of  the  middle 
of  the  earth,  believe  or  deliver  a  different  faith."  "  The  whole 
Church  has  one  and  the  same  faith  throughout  the  whole  world, 
as  we  have  explained  above."  And  for  further  proof  I  must  refer 
to  the  quotations  from  the  Fathers  already  made,  to  show  the 
unity  of  the  Church.  How,  then,  did  these  alleged  errors  get 
into  this  universal  and  united  Church  f 

That  a  universal  combination  among  all  the  clergy,  so  widely 
scattered  over  the  world,  could  have  been  entered  into,  cannot 
be  supposed,  because  utterly  impossible.  Every  one  of  them 
must  have  been,  at  the  same  time,  without  any  integrity  what- 
ever. But  supposing  it  possible,  how  did  the  well-instructed 
laity  come  to  yield  up  their  Christian  liberty,  as  well  as  the  true 
faith  ?  Had  they  all  lost  their  memories  ?  To  introduce  these 
alleged  errors  at  once,  was  surely  impossible ;  and  to  introduce 
them  gradually,  without  producing,  intense  commotions  and 
divisions,  would  seem  equally  incredible.  Dr.  Priestly  did  con- 
tend that  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  never  dreamed  of,  as  he  sup- 
posed, in  the  days  of  the  apostles,  crept  in  as  an  opinion  a  short 
time  afterwards,  waxed  strong,  until  it  was  finally  enacted  into 
an  article  of  faith  in  the  Council  of  Nice  A.  D.  325. 

But  I  must  confess  I  could  not  understand  this  silent  and 
gradual  process.  It  was  so  silent  and  gradual  as  to  awaken  no 
attention,  and  yet  so  efficient  as  to  make  you  understand  and 
believe  those  false  doctrines.  It  did  not  make  you  forget  the 
well-known  universal  rule,  that  nothing  new  was  to  be  intro- 
duced, but  it  made  you  entirely  overlook  the  plain  fact,  that 
these  alleged  errors  were  new  additions,  never  heard  of 
before.  By  the  magical  and  mysterious  efficiency  of  this  gradual 
silent  process,  it  is  substantially  assumed  that  the  suffering,  vigi- 
lant, universal,  and  united  Church,  actually  mistook  those  new 
innovations  for  her  old  tenets,  contrary  to  the  simple  testimony 
of  her  memory.  It  was  certainly  a  very  remarkable  oblivion 
of  memory,  on  the  part  of  so  many  intelligent  and  sincere  per- 
sons, who  "  were,"  as  Dr.  Paley  well  says,  "  in  earnest  upon  the 
subject." 

And  how  this  process  could  be  so  silent  as  to  entirely  escape 
detection,  and,  at  the  same  time,  so  efficient  as  to  introduce 
successfully  such  alleged  errors,  I  could  not  perceive.  And  how 


MISCELLANEOUS   CONSIDERATIONS.  721 

the  change  could  be  so  gradual  as  not  only  to  escape  notice, 
while  going  on,  but  also  to  be  unknown  and  unfelt  after  it  was 
accomplished,  I  could  not  tell.  Can  you  cut  a  man's  arm  off  so 
gradually  that  he  will  not  feel  it  ?  Can  you  do  this  so  imper- 
ceptibly that  he  will  not  know,  after  it  is  done,  that  he  has  lost 
an  arm  ?  And  can  you  make  him  believe  that  he  never  had 
but  one  ?  Can  you  introduce  a  viper  into  my  house  so  secretly 
that  I  will  never  know  it  ?  and  so  gradually,  that  when  I  do 
find  him  out,  I  will  not  know  him  ?  And  can  you  so  gradually 
change  a  man's  views  from  Infidelity  to  Christianity,  that  he 
will  not  perceive  the  change  during  its  progress,  and  not  know 
it  after  his  conversion  ? 

And  as  to  introducing  them  first  in  the  shape  of  opinions, 
and  then  afterwards  adopting  them  as  articles  of  faith,  I  could 
not  well  understand  how  this  could  be  ;  especially  in  reference 
to  those  tenets  contradictory  of  the  existing  faith.  For  exam- 
ple, I  could  not  understand  how  the  Church,  holding,  as  an  ar- 
ticle of  faith,  that  Christ  was  not  God,  could  tolerate  even  the 
opinion  that  He  was  God.  Certainly,  if  I  am  required  to  be- 
lieve in  the  absence  of  all  divinity  in  Christ,  I  cannot  be  allowed 
to  hold  the  precise  opposite,  even  as  an  opinion.  If  it  be  the 
established  faith  that  Christ  is  not  present  in  the  Eucharist,  I 
cannot  see  by  what  semblance  of  reason  the  Church  would  per- 
mit any  member  to  believe  the  contrary.  In  short,  I  cannot 
form  any  conception  of  that  theory  which  would  require  mem- 
bers to  hold  a  certain  doctrine  as  an  article  of  faith,  and,  at  the 
same  time,  permit  them  to  hold  its  opposite  as  an  opinion.  Nor 
can  I  understand  how  the  human  mind  could  contain  these  op- 
posites,  and  believe  them  both,  at  the  same  time.  I  can  well 
understand  how,  in  reference  to  matters  of  discipline  and  specu- 
lative opinions,  the  Church  allows  her  children  to  hold  either 
side  of  the  question,  as  matter  of  opinion  ;  but  I  cannot  under- 
stand how  she  could  require  her  members  all  to  believe  one 
thing  as  a  matter  of  faith,  and,  at  the  same  time,  allow  them  to 
disbelieve  it. 

And  it  would  certainly  be  most  surprising,  that  the  intro- 
duction of  these  alleged  errors,  even  in  the  shape  of  opinions, 
created  no  dissension  or  discussion  in  the  Church ;  and  still 
more  surprising,  that  whe'i  they  were  changed  from  that  shape. 
62 


722  MISCELLANEOUS    CONSIDERATIONS. 

all  were  required  to  believe,  as  faith,  what  before  all  had  been 
required  to  disbelieve  as  heresy ;  and  yet  this  state  of  case  pro- 
duce no  discussions  and  no  divisions. 

This  silent,  creeping,  and  gradual  process,  if  true,  completely 
answered  and  upset  Leslie's  line  of  argument ;  and,  il  once  con- 
ceded to  be  practicable,  did  prove  that  all  the  doctrines  and 
practices  of  the  Jews  could  have  been  so  gradually  introduced, 
that  they  would  not  have  known  it. 

But  I  could  have  no  confidence  in  the  solidity  of  this  attempt- 
ed explanation.  It  was  too  weak  and  doubtful  to  rely  upon. 
A  Church  starting  right,  and  upon  the  basis  of  an  unchangeable 
faith,  and  remaining  so  vigilant  as  to  forget  nothing,  could  not 
possibly  be  thus  entrapped  and  deceived.  If  a  few  ministers 
had  attempted  to  introduce  them  at  any  time,  all  the  other 
clergy  and  all  the  lay  members  would  have  opposed  them,  and 
they  would  have  been  either  put  down,  or  the  introducers  ex- 
pelled from  the  Church.  There  could  never  have  happened 
such  a  universal  and  wholesale  apostasy,  so  silently  and  smooth- 
ly accomplished,  that  no  one  opposed  it,  and  no  divisions  fol- 
lowed. All  could  not  have  slept  at  their  posts,  nor  could  even 
a  majority.  Nor  could  many  have  been  dishonest  in  those 
days  of  trial  and  suffering.  "  Their  integrity  was  insured  by 
the  insults  they  suffered."  And  so  long  as  one  single  honest 
and  vigilant  bishop,  priest,  or  layman  remained  anywhere  in  the 
Church,  uhese  alleged  errors  would  have  encountered  his  stern 
opposition ;  and  his  opposition  would  have  aroused  that  of  oth- 
ers. We  have  accounts  of  many  heresies,  and  it  is  most  re- 
markable we  have  none  of  these,  if  they  be,  in  fact,  heresies. 
The  Church  would  have  felt  and  recorded  the  shock.  Such  a 
mighty  mass  of  error  would  have  left  certain  and  clear  evidences 
of  their  introduction  and  effects.  The  march  of  a  mighty  army 
through  a  cultivated  country  leaves  visible  desolation  behind. 
The  travel  of  a  monster  along  a  dusty  road,  or  through  a  swamp, 
will  leave  a  visible  track.  In  both  cases  the  trail  is  plain,  and  it 
can  be  easily  followed.  And  the  introduction  of  great  and 
grievous  errors  into  such  a  Church,  would  always  arouse  oppo- 
sition, too  strong  to  be  ever  overlooked  or  forgotten. 


MISCELLANEOUS   CONSIDERATIONS.  723 

§  6.   The  same  subject  still  further  considered. 

Another  reflection  arose  in  my  mind  as  to  the  state  of  case 
supposed  by  Protestants.  The  Church  is  conceded  to  have 
started  right.  She  then  held  the  true  faith,  no  more,  no  less, 
in  her  widely-extended  but  united  communion.  She  had  hun- 
dreds of  thousands  in  her  ranks,  of  all  conditions,  dispersed  over 
the  wide  world.  She  was  particularly  grounded  in  the  plain 
and  intelligible  principle,  universally  acknowledged  and  under- 
stood, that  nothing  new  was  to  be  added  to  the  faith  of  the 
Church,  and  nothing  lost.  Whatever  the  faith  was,  it  was  one 
and  indivisible — complete  and  entire — a  single  unit — and  was 
so  to  remain  to  the  last  day  and  the  last  man. 

But  this  Church  universal,  united,  and  grounded  in  such  a 
fixed  sentiment,  is  supposed  to  have  become  suddenly  possessed 
of  the  most  daring  and  reckless  spirit  of  innovation.  The  Apos- 
tle John  had  scarcely  been  in  his  grave  before  the  very  men 
appointed  by  the  apostles,  even  the  holy  martyrs  for  the  faith, 
those  valiant  and  devoted  souls  who  faced  a  heathen  world, 
bearing  the  cross  to  the  nations,  and  sealing  their  ministry,  like 
the  apostles,  with  their  voluntary  blood,  are  supposed  to  have 
been  led  away  by  this  most  strange  and  unaccountable  delusion. 
And  while  the  Church  was  proclaiming  everywhere  "  nothing 
new,"  she  was  introducing  these  alleged  errors ;  and  then,  after 
accomplishing  the  ruin  of  the  faith  and  her  own,  like  a  sinking 
ship,  she  settled  down — gave  up  all  this  fell  spirit  of  innovation 
— insisted  that  her  faith  was  unchangeable,  as  she  had  always 
done  ;  with  this  difference,  however,  that  before  the  faith  was 
supposed  to  have  been  corrupted,  she  was  mistaken,  but  that 
since  that  melancholy  event  happened,  she  is  right  in  her  asser- 
tion of  immutability,  and  the  complaint  now  is,  that  she  is  not 
reformable  at  all.  So  that  she  is  at  the  same  time  accused  of  an 
innovating  spirit  for  evil,  and  a  conservative  spirit  for  the  same. 
Her  creed  is  alleged  to  have  been  changeable  enough  for  the 
introduction  of  error,  but  wholly  unchangeable  for  its  correc- 
tion. As  if  some  great  and  far-seeing  mind  had  deliberately 
surveyed  the  Christian  Church,  when  in  its  purity,  and  had 
clearly  perceived,  in  advance,  what  additions  the  system  would 
bear,  and  the  members  endure,  and  marked,  with  logical  pre- 


724:  MISCELLANEOUS    CONSIDERATIONS. 

cision  and  consistency,  the  precise  point  to  which  these  errors 
could,  with  entire  safety  and  success,  proceed  ;  and,  after  having 
maturely  surveyed  the  whole  ground,  set  about  to  accomplish 
these  mighty  changes,  and  either  did  succeed  himself,  or  his 
successors  and  disciples  did  in  his  stead — that  when  all  this  was 
accomplished,  the  Church  rested  from  her  labor  of  innovation, 
and  stands  thenceforward  firm  upon  her  usurped  territory. 
And  it  is  one  of  the  peculiarly  aggravating  circumstances  in  her 
case,  that  she  boldly  and  continually  asserted  that  her  faith  was 
fixed  and  unchangeable,  while  in  the  very  act  of  changing  it  in 
the  most  palpable  and  glaring  respects ;  and  having  hypocriti- 
cally accomplished  this,  she,  with  wicked  inconsistency,  sancti- 
fied and  fixed  these  alleged  changes  permanently  in  the  Church, 
upon  the  very  same  ground  of  immutability.  And  not  only  so, 
but  while  in  the  very  act  of  making  these  alleged  additions  to 
the  faith,  she  was  herself  claiming  an  infallibility  never  heard 
of  before,  and,  at  the  very  time,  giving  to  all  the  most  conclu- 
sive proofs  that  she  did  not  possess  it.  She  was  guilty,  accord- 
ing to  the  Protestant  theory,  of  the  gross  inconsistency  of  de- 
claring, with  one  and  the  same  breath,  that  her  creed  was 
unchangeable — that  she  must  change  it — and  that  she  was  in- 
fallible in  making  changes  in  a  fixed  and  immutable  system. 

And  notwithstanding  her  alleged  monstrous  errors,  her  pal- 
pable innovations,  and  her  grossly  inconsistent  conduct,  she  has 
succeeded  in  keeping  in  her  communion  the  overwhelming  ma- 
jority of  all  professed  Christians  in  all  ages  since  she  began ; 
and  so  effectually  has  she  covered  up  these  alleged  errors,  and 
concealed  the  existence  of  the  supposed  true  Church,  in  past 
ages,  that  the  finger  of  time  points  not  to  them,  and  the  page  of 
history  is  silent.  And  not  only  so,  but  she  has  succeeded  in 
making  all  her  children,  numerous  as  they  are,  and  have  ever 
been,  and  widely  dispersed,  believe  in  her  alleged  pretence  of 
infallibility,  and  love  and  adhere  to  her  in  proportion  as  she  is 
supposed,  by  her  enemies,  to  have  been  wicked,  inconsistent, 
and  oppressive.  And  so  intense  is  this  love  and  this  reverence, 
that  when  her  alleged  errors  are  depicted  in  the  vehement  and 
glowing  colors  of  supposed  light  and  truth,  and  her  assumed 
delinquencies  are  portrayed  in  strains  of  vindictive  denunciation. 

"  And  bung  on  high  to  poison  half  mankind," 


MISCELLANEOUS   CONSIDERATIONS.  725 

her  deluded  children  love  her  the  more,  and  cleave  to  her  as 
the  friends  of  old  Paul  did  to  him,  only  the  more  closely  for 
these  things.  For  by  some  awful  and  mysterious  influence — by 
some  subtle  logic — she  binds  her  children  with  cords  too  atten- 
uated to  be  perceived,  and  too  strong  to  be  broken.  And 
truly,  in  the  contemplation  of  the  Protestant  theory,  she  has 
been,  and  is, 

"  The  glory,  jest,  and  riddle  of  the  world." 

And  in  proportion  as  Protestantism  degrades  the  Old 
Church,  by  these  criminations,  it  claims  for  itself  a  position  so 
sublime,  that  the  distance  between  the  two  is  as  great  as  human 
delinquency  on  the  one  hand,  and  faith  and  fidelity  on  the  other, 
could  well  make  it.  For  if  the  Old  Church  wantonly  and  wick- 
edly corrupted  the  faith  of  Christ,  under  all  the  advantages  she 
possessed,  and  Protestants  have  restored  it,  under  all  the  diffi> 
culties  in  their  way,  the  distance  between  the  two  must  surely 
be  very  great.  There  must,  in  the  very  nature  of  the  alleged 
fact,  be  the  greatest  criminality  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  sub- 
limest  virtue  on  the  other.  And  surely,  Protestantism  does 
assume  to  occupy  a  "  painful  pre-eminence  " — a  position  which 
must  be  attained  through  mighty  crimination,  and  by  wading 
through  the  moral  slaughter  of  the  Christian  world. 

And  after  making  these  charges  of  errors  so  gross — of  wick- 
edness so  general — of  conduct  so  inconsistent — arising  from 
motives  so  impure,  Protestants  complain  loudly  of  the  Old 
Church,  because  she  still  insists,  as  she  always  insisted,  that 
Christ  never  did  organize,  or  intend,  but  one  Church ;  and  that 
therefore  she  cannot  abandon  the  faith  by  acknowledging  any 
of  the  Protestant  communions  as  parts  of  the  true  Church 
of  Christ.  Her  intolerance,  as  it  is  called,  in  regarding  them 
as  heretics,  professing  an  erroneous  faith,  is  bitterly  condemned 
by  them.  But  under  the  state  of  case,  I  do  not  know  what 
else  the  Old  Church  could  do.  If  not  guilty  of  these  diversified 
and  grievous  charges,  she  could  not,  with  any  self-respect,  or 
with  any  regard  to  truth  itself,  plead  guilty.  If  Protestants 
have  placed  themselves  in  a  false  position  by  a  denial  of  the 
truth,  they  have  no  right  to  expect  the  Old  Church  to  do  the 
same  thing,  and  become  false  to  her  mighty  trust,  and  to  her 


726  MISCELLANEOUS    CONSIDERATIONS. 

uniform  profession,  out  of  mere  kindness  to  them.  And  if  she 
be  guilty,  then  she  is  wholly  unworthy  of  the  communion  of 
Protestants.  For  this  plain  alternative  must  ever  come  up  in 
the  minds  of  all  sincere  and  reflective  persons :  either  the  Cath- 
olic Church  was  guilty  of  fundamental  error,  or  there  was  no 
just  cause  for  the  Reformation.  And  as  one  or  the  other  al- 
ternative must  be  true,  there  is  grievous  error  somewhere. 

Under  such  circumstances,  can  any  fair  and  just  man,  upon 
reflection,  expect  that  the  Old  Church  could  make  so  gross  a 
sacrifice  of  the  faith,  (which  she  has  so  long  maintained,)  as  to 
acknowledge,  as  true  sisters,  those  who  thus  lay  charges  so  ex- 
tensive and  grievous  at  her  door?  Had  she  not  better  die  the 
death  of  Stephen?  What  self-respect — what  sincerity — what 
consistency  could  she  claim,  were  she  to  sacrifice  her  ancient 
faith  in  that  way  ?  She  cannot  do  it.  The  gates  of  hell  would 
at  once  prevail  against  her  if  she  did.  While  she  and  her  chil- 
dren can  hear  and  bear,  with  patience  and  charity,  the  oft  reit- 
eration of  these  charges,  and  pray  for  those  who  make  them, 
she  cannot  deceive  them  by  pleading  guilty,  when  innocent. 
This  would  be  betraying  the  cause  of  Christ,  and  ruining  her- 
self, without  doing  them  the  slightest  good,  except  to  afford 
them  a  mere  passing  gratification.  And  there  can  be  but  one 
of  two  courses  for  her  to  take.  If  she  be  guilty,  she  should  ac- 
knowledge the  fact  and  abandon  her  errors.  If  not  guilty,  she 
must  maintain  her  integrity  and  her  faith,  and  hold  those  aa 
heretics  who  dispute  them. 

But  another  question  arose  in  my  mind :  What  adequate 
and  efficient  motives  could  have  existed  to  produce  these  al- 
leged additions  to  the  faith  ?  Men  are  not  "  wickedly  wise  " 
without  motive.  And  the  motive  must  bear  a  due  proportion 
to  the  wickedness  of  the  act,  and  the  difficulties  to  be  overcome 
in  its  accomplishment.  Protestants  have  been  sensible  of  this 
most  reasonable  position.  Hence  their  controvertists  impute  to 
the  Catholic  clergy  the  most  ambitious,  sordid,  and  unworthy 
motives.  But  while  their  theory  imputes  to  the  clergy  such  a 
mass  of  wickedness,  it  at  the  same  time  imputes  to  the  laity 
motives  precisely  opposed.  So  that  the  theory  assumes  this 
exact  state  of  case :  unbounded  ambition  and  corruption  in  the 
and  a  base  abandonment  of  their  dearest  and  plainest 


MISCELLANEOUS    CONSIDERATIONS.  727 

rights  on  the  part  of  the  laity.  In  short,  the  theory  imputes 
the  most  criminal  delinquencies  to  all,  both  clergy  and  laity. 
And  while  it  imputes  so  much  ambition  and  corruption  to  one 
class,  it  wholly  excludes  these  vices  from  the  other,  but  assigns 
to  the  laity  other  vices,  equally  fatal  to  the  truth. 

It  must  be  obvious  to  the  reflective  mind,  that  ingenious, 
active,  restless  malice,  suspicion  or  prejudice,  can  impute  a 
plausible,  improper  motive,  for  every  good  and  virtuous  act. 
There  is  scarcely  a  single  virtuous  act  that  man  can  perform, 
that  will  not  allow  of  this.  And  it  arises  from  the  plain  fact, 
that  good  and  virtuous  actions  merit,  and  will  receive,  when 
known,  the  admiration  and  applause  of  good  men.  And  as  the 
love  of  fame  is  inherent  in  the  bosoms  of  all  men,  to  a  greater 
or  less  extent,  such  a  motive,  if  no  other,  can  always  be  assigned 
with  some  plausibility  to  every  action,  however  meritorious  and 
disinterested. 

Protestant  writers  allege,  in  substance,  that  the  Catholic 
theory  gives  more  importance  to  the  clergy,  in  the  government 
of  the  Church,  than  the  Protestant ;  and  that  this  constitutes 
the  motive  which  led  to  the- introduction  of  these  alleged  addi- 
tions to  the  faith.  It  must  be  obvious  that  the  wise  founder  of 
any  government  will  keep  in  his  eye  the  necessary  powers  to 
attain  the  end  intended  to  be  reached  by  its  organization.  If 
he  gives  too  little  power,  his  government  fails  from  weakness. 
If  he  bestows  too  much,  and  that  unchecked,  it  may  lead  to 
abuses,  and  consequent  suffering.  After  all  that  can  be  said 
about  liberty  and  tyranny,  freedom  and  oppression,  the  just 
conclusion  must  at  last  be  reached,  that  a  proper  measure  of 
power  and  authority  must  be  given  to  every  government.  To 
accomplish  a  great  end,  proportionate  powers  must  be  con 
ferred. 

It  must  be  conceded,  that  in  the  Catholic  theory,  the  clergy, 
as  a  collective  body  of  men,  are  relatively  more  important  than 
in  the  Protestant ;  and  if  this  importance  was  not  checked  and 
counterbalanced  by  other  opposing  influences,  it  might,  with, 
some  plausibility,  be  said,  that  there  did  exist  such  a  motive. 
But  while  it  might  thus  be  said  of  the  clergy,  it  must,  at  the 
same  time,  be  said  of  the  Catholic  laity,  that  they  had  an  op- 
posite motive,  equally  strong.  The  impossibility  of  introducing 


728  MISCELLANEOUS    CONSIDERATIONS. 

these  alleged  errors  against  the  settled  faith  and  maxims  of  the 
Church,  and  the  dearest  rights  and  plainest  impulses  of  the 
laity,  would  be  obvious. 

But  when  we  come  to  examine  these  alleged  additions,  and 
calmly  estimate  their  true  character,  it  will  be  seen,  that  while 
they,  in  themselves,  abstractly  considered,  do  increase  the  im- 
portance of  the  clergy  collectively,  they,  at  the  same  time,  im- 
pose such  additional  sacrifices  and  labors  as  constitute  a  com- 
plete counterbalance.  A  reward  may  be  tempting,  but  the 
sacrifice  necessary  to  attain  it  may  be  proportionately  discour- 
aging. The  law  of  evidence  will  not  allow  a  witness  to  testify 
in  favor  of  the  party  who  calls  him,  when  the  witness  has  a 
direct  and  immediate  interest  in  the  result  of  the  suit  in  favor 
of  the  party  whose  witness  he  is.  If,  however,  the  witness  be 
interested  both  ways,  so  that  if  the  party  who  calls  him  gain  or 
lose  the  case,  the  witness  will  still  be  substantially  in  the  same 
condition,  the  law  holds  his  interest  counterpoised,  and  permits 
him  to  testify.  If,  then,  these  alleged  errors  offer  inducements 
on  the  one  hand,  and  impose  proportionate  or  greater  sacrifices 
on  the  other,  where  is  the  motive  for  their  alleged  introduction  ? 
And  as  to  the  laity,  they  had  the  most  powerful  motives  to  op- 
pose, because  the  introduction  of  these  alleged  errors  would  di- 
minish their  privileges,  and  increase  their  burthens,  while  at  the 
same  time,  the  true  faith  was  sacrificed. 

It  would  seem  eminently  just  in  itself,  to  suppose  that  Christ 
intended  to  accomplish  some  great  and  mighty  end  by  the  or- 
ganization of  the  Church ;  and  that  great  functions  must,  in  the 
nature  of  the  case,  have  been  bestowed  upon  the  governing 
power  of  the  institution,  while  at  the  same  time,  such  sacrifices 
and  labors  would  be  imposed  as  would  constitute  efficient  checks 
to  abuses.  The  honor  of  being  regarded  as  the  immediate  and 
chosen  apostles  of  the  Son  of  God,  was  certainly  very  great, 
and  did  bring  to  the  apostles,  in  the  minds  of  their  brethren, 
the  greatest  love,  veneration,  and  respect.  "  And  they  all  wept 
sore,  and  fell  on  Paul's  neck  and  kissed  him.  Sorrowing  most 
of  all  for  the  words  which  he  spake,  that  they  should  see  his 
face  no  more."  (Acts  xx.  37.) 

But  while  our  Lord  bestowed  such  powers  and  honors,  He 
at  the  same  time  imposed  such  labors,  responsibilities,  and  perils, 


MISCELLANEOUS   CONSIDERATIONS.  729 

as  constituted  a  most  overpowering  motive  on  the  other  side, 
if  the  system  He  established  was  untrue.  The  rose,  indeed, 
was  sweet,  but  the  thorns  were  sharp.  And  it  would  seem  to 
be  the  true  theory  of  every  government,  to  impose  great  re- 
sponsibilities with  great  powers ;  and  that  those  to  whom  the 
governing  power  of  the  Church  is  intrusted,  should,  in  the  na- 
ture of  the  system,  be  required  to  make  greater  sacrifices,  and 
perform  more  arduous  labors  than  the  laity,  would  seem  a  sen- 
timent just  in  itself. 

And  is  this  not  so  in  the  Catholic  theory  ?  As  we  have 
seen,  the  Catholic  clergy  make  far  greater  sacrifices  than  the 
Protestant.  The  difference  between  the  two  classes,  in  this  re- 
spect, is  great  and  obvious. 

But  while  I  considered  the  alleged  motives  imputed  to  the 
Catholic  Priesthood,  I  also  looked  into  those  that  could  be 
urged  against  the  Protestant  clergy.  And  I  must  confess  that 
I  could  not  find  any  doctrine  or  practice  which  increased  their 
labors  or  sacrifices,  or  diminished  their  enjoyments,  as  compared 
with  the  Catholic  theory,  except  that  of  administering  baptism 
by  immersion,  which  applied  to  but  a  very  small  proportion  of 
them,  and  was,  in  itself,  but  a  slight  increase  of  labor.  And 
while  their  labors  and  sacrifices  were  not  increased  by  the  Prot- 
estant theory,  they  were  relieved  from  the  onerous  duties  and 
sacrifices  incumbent  upon  the  Catholic  clergy. 

It  is  true,  that  while  4heir  collective  relative  importance  was 
diminished  by  the  theory,  their  individual  privileges,  and  some- 
times their  individual  importance,  was  increased  in  practice. 
The  only  checks  imposed  by  the  fundamental  rule  were  the  dis- 
cretion of  the  preacher  and  his  ability  to  procure  hearers  and 
followers ;  and  those  obstacles  could  be  readily  overcome  by 
the  ambitious  and  talented.  Having  been  forced  to  adopt  the 
rule  of  private  interpretation  in  the  last  resort,  and,  therefore, 
to  deny  all  government  in  the  Church,  they  still  insist  upon  the 
possession,  in  mere  form,  of  such  powers.  And  while  they 
maintain  the  theory  itself  for  the  purpose  of  attack  and  self-jus- 
tification, they,  at  the  same  time,  awkwardly  and  inconsistently 
endeavor  to  maintain  the  opposite  principle  of  government  in 
the  Church. 

And  in  comparing  the  motives  that  could  be  plausibly  al- 
63 


730  MISCELLANEOUS    CONSIDERATIONS. 

leged  to  produce  the  two  clerical  and  doctrinal  theories,  this 
case  occurred  to  me :  Suppose  a  worldly-minded  individual  to 
seek  the  ministry  as  a  profession  simply,  and  to  have  choice  of 
a  place  either  in  the  Catholic  or  Protestant  ministry;  which 
would  he  prefer  ?  That  he  would  always  prefer  the  Protestant 
I  could  not  doubt.  So  far,  then,  as  worldly  motives  may  bo 
supposed  to  operate,  I  could  have  no  hesitation  in  arriving  at 
the  conclusion,  that  they  are  much  more  powerful  in  the  Prot- 
estant than  in  the  Catholic  theory. 

That  these  alleged  additions  to  the  faith  of  the  Church  were 
all  held  and  universally  believed  in  the  Church  of  the  first  five 
centuries,  I  could  have  no  doubt.  And  even  if  this  could  possi- 
bly be  disputed,  the  same  insuperable  difficulties  against  their 
supposed  introduction,  must  have  occurred,  whenever  they  were 
alleged  to  have  arisen.  And  it  did  seem  to  me,  that,  as  the  at- 
tempt to  restore  the  alleged  pure  faith,  and  to  abolish  these 
alleged  errors,  did  lead  to  such  palpable  divisions  and  discus- 
sions, at  and  since  the  alleged  Reformation,  the  same  must, 
from  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  have  happened  whenever  they 
were  introduced.  The  widely-dispersed  Church  must  have 
powerfully  felt  the  shock,  and  given  us  powerful  demonstrations 
of  its  sensibility.  No  other  case,  to  my  mind,  was  conceivable, 
upon  any  rational  basis  whatever.  And  I  could  just  as  readily 
believe  that  the  Scriptures  themselves  had  been  forged,  and  that 
they,  and  all  the  alleged  notable  and- miraculous  facts,  upon 
which  the  system  of  Christianity  assumes  to  rest,  could  have 
been  palmed  upon  the  first  Christians,  as  true,  when  they  were, 
in  fact,  false,  as  to  believe  that  this  mighty  mass  of  alleged 
error  could  have  been  imposed  upon  the  universal  and  united 
Church,  contrary  to  her  fixed  and  fundamental  maxims.  To 
my  apprehension,  the  Protestant  theory,  when  calmly  and 
thoroughly  examined,  will  be  found  to  be  a  formidable  at- 
tack upon  the  truth  of  Christianity  itself.  Most  of  their  leading 
arguments  to  refute  the  Catholic  theory,  will  be  found  in  the 
mouths  of  all  Infidels.  Put  the  main  arguments  of  Protestants 
and  Infidels  side  by  side,  and  examine  them  closely,  and  they 
will  be  found  to  be  based,  essentially,  upon  the  same  erroneous 
principles.  Their  logical  and  inevitable  tendency  leads,  at  last, 
to  the  same  result :  a  denial  of  the  truth  of  Christianity  itself. 


MISCELLANEOUS    CONSIDERATIONS.  731 

§  7.  The  Unity  and  Sufferings  of  the  Old  Church. 

It  has  been  said  that  the  continued  unity  of  the  Catholio 
Church  constitutes  but  a  flimsy  argument  in  her  favor.  The 
idea  intended  to  be  conveyed  by  this  objection  is,  that  the  pro- 
fessors of  other  religions,  Mohammedan  and  Heathen,  have  con- 
tinued united  in  their  false  theories ;  and  that,  therefore,  con- 
tinued unity  is  no  argument  to  prove  the  truth  of  any  religion. 
For  if  we  say  it  does  in  one  case,  it  does  in  the  others,  and  this 
would  prove  all  true.  I  have  put  the  objection  in  its  strongest 
and  clearest  form,  to  the  best  of  my  judgment. 

This  objection,  at  first  view,  would  seem  to  be  very  plausible. 
But  conceding,  for  the  sake  of  the  argument  only,  that  this  unity 
has  continued  to  exist  among  the  professors  of  other  religions, 
as  well  as  among  Catholics,  and  to  the  same  extent ;  what,  then, 
are  the  true  and  legitimate  deductions  from  such  conceded 
premises  ?  I  apprehend  that  these  results  must  follow : 

1.  That,  in  the  matter  of  religion^  men  are  so  deeply  and 
vitally  concerned,  that  among  the  great  mass  of  its  professors, 
the  faith  once  delivered,  is  always  preserved,  and  safely  transmit- 
ted from  generation  to  generation.     And  that,  for  example,  the 
Mohammedanism  of  to-day,  is  the  Mohammedanism  of  the  begin- 
ning.    It  proves  the  safe  transmission  of  religion,  even  though 
false,  as  it  was  in  its  original  state. 

2.  That  the  unity  of  the  great  body  of  professed  Christians 
in  the  Catholic  Church  proves,  in  the  same  way,  the  safe  trans- 
mission of  the  religion  of  Jesus,  as  it  was  by  Him  delivered  ; 
and,  by  consequence,  is  a  most  powerful  argument  to  prove  her 
to  be  in  the  right.     For  whether  a  system  of  religion  be  true  or 
false  in  its  origin,  the  fact  that  the  great  mass  of  its  professors 
have,  for  a  long  course  of  ages,  continued  united  in  the  same 
faith,  is  a  very  strong  proof  of  their  vigilance,  sincerity,  and  con- 
sistency ;  and  these  qualities  will  be  found  in  those  who  do  safely 
transmit  a  religious  theory,  purporting  to  be  permanent  in  its 
original  form  ;  while  these  qualities  will  not  always  be  found  in 
those  who  seek  to  vary  or  change  such  a  system.     If  the  theory, 
as  originally  promulgated,  assume  to  be  incomplete,  and,  there- 
fore, improvable  and  variable,  changes  in  the  system  would  be 
compatible  with  its  original  basis.     But  where  the  system,  as  in 


MISCELLANEOUS    CONSIDERATIONS. 

Christianity,  assumes  to  be  perfect  and  unchangeable  from  the 
beginning,  this  unity  does  constitute  one  of  the  most  powerful 
arguments  to  prove  which  is  the  true  Church. 

It  seemed  to  me  that  unity  was  one  of  the  leading  duties 
of  Christians.  That  it  was  not  only  an  evidence,  for  that 
reason,  to  show  which  is  the  true  Church ;  but  that  it  was  a 
powerful  argument,  even  with  Infidels  themselves.  Our  Lord 
certainly  so  considered  it,  when  He  prayed  so  fervently  for  the 
union  of  His  followers,  "  that  the  world  might  believe  that  the 
Father  had  sent  Him."  So  did  St.  Paul  and  St.  Peter,  when  so 
earnestly  warning  their  brethren  against  heresies  and  divisions. 
I  supposed  that  this  continued  unity  was,  at  least,  one  very 
powerful  argument,  for  the  explicit  reason,  that  in  the  contem- 
plation of  Christ,  this  unity  was  always  to  be  found  in  the  true 
Church.  And  if  this  continued  unity  was  always  to  be  found  in 
the  true  Church,  its  being  found  in  the  Catholic  Church,  as  I 
supposed,  is  surely  one  strong  argument  in  her  favor.  This 
conclusion  was  made  overwhelming  to  my  mind,  by  the  fact, 
that  this  unity,  contemplated  by  the  Divine  Lawgiver,  cannot 
be  found  elsewhere  ;  for  the  reason,  that  those  who  have  adopted 
the  opposite  of  her  fundamental  rule,  in  different  ages  since  the 
beginning  of  the  Christian  era,  have  as  uniformly  severed  and 
divided,  until  reforms  became  interminable. 

As  unity  is  an  attribute  of  the  true  Church,  and  one  of  the 
leading  duties  of  Christians,  were  an  intelligent  stranger  seeking 
for  the  true  Church,  would  he  expect  to  find  it  among  those  who 
do  not  possess  this  attribute,  and  have  not  done  their  duty  in  this 
great  and  essential  respect  ?  Would  he  expect  to  find  a  dis- 
cordant true  Church  ?  or  a  changeable  true  Church  ?  In  his 
examination,  I  suppose,  he  would  begin  at  the  beginning,  and 
firs^  examine  the  fundamental  rule  of  each  party ;  and  if  he 
found  that  one  party,  under  its  fundamental  rule,  was  full  of  dis- 
cords and  variations,  his  common  sense  would  tell  him  there 
was  something  radically  wrong  there.  And  he  would  naturally 
say  to  himself:  "  One  of  two  things  is  true  ;  either  Christianity 
has  changed,  or  the  true  Church  is  not  here."  But  were  he  to 
examine  the  other  rule,  and  find  that  all  who  adhere  to  it  do 
possess  this  unity,  and  at  all  times  have  possessed  it,  he  would 
as  naturally  say  :  "  One  of  two  conclusions  is  true  ;  either  thia 


MISCELLANEOUS   CONSIDERATIONS.  733 

is  the  true  Church,  or  the  promises  of  Christ  have  failed.  For 
the  true  Church  must  always  profess  the  true,  and,  therefore, 
the  same  faith,  and  possess  this  same  unity." 

But  the  state  of  unity  assumed,  in  reference  to  the  professors 
of  false  religions,  is  not  borne  out  by  the  fa"cts  of  history.  The 
Mohammedans  have  long  been  divided  into  at  least  two  parties. 
Mohammed  was  not  a  very  competent  legislator,  and  left  his  sys- 
tem very  imperfect  in  some  respects.  But  though  these  divisions 
have  occurred  among  them,  they  do  not,  in  fact,  bear  any  pro- 
portion to  the  alleged  changes  in  the  Christian  Church.  They 
are  few  in  number,  and  different  in  character,  as  compared  with 
the  mass  of  alleged  errors  imputed  to  the  Catholic  Church. 
And  not  only  so,  but  they  have  not  been  produced  so  silently 
and  gradually,  as  to  leave  no  visible  traces  behind.  The  history 
of  those  divisions,  when  and  how  they  arose,  and  by  whose 
agency,  is  very  well  preserved. 

So  that  the  truth  of  history,  as  I  understand  it,  is  substan- 
tially this :  there  has  been  a  greater  unity  in  the  Catholio 
Church  than  in  the  Mohammedan,  or  any  other,  so  far  as  we 
have  the  means  of  knowing ;  while  at  the  same  time  those  divi- 
sions have  not  been  so  great  as  the  alleged  divisions  and  errors 
in  the  Catholic  Church.  In  other  words,  the  alleged  inconsist- 
ent changes  in  the  faith  of  the  Catholic  Church  have  been 
greater  than  those  actually  introduced  into  any  of  the  anti- 
Christian  Churches  of  the  world. 

And  we  may  take  either  view  of  the  historical  fact,  and  the 
argument  from  the  continued  unity  of  the  Catholic  Church,  is, 
indeed,  a  very  powerful  one.  If  it  be  true,  that  one  large  por- 
tion of  mankind  united  in  the  profession  of  one  religion,  and  an- 
other large  portion  in  the  profession  of  a  different  theory,  for 
many  ages  together ;  then  it  does  show,  that  when  a  system  is  once 
established,  which  purports  upon  its  face  to  be  permanent  in  the 
same  form,  and  to  continue  without  addition  or  subtraction,  it 
cannot  be  changed  by  a  wholesale  addition  of  the  most  disgusting, 
oppressive,  and  inconsistent  errors,  without  incurring  the  most 
strenuous  resistance,  and  without  leaving  the  most  palpable  his- 
torical evidences  of  the  struggle  behind. 

Macaulay,  the  brilliant  English  Protestant  historian,  has  a 
well-known  passage,  in  which  he  speaks  of  the  wonderful  sagacity 


734  MISCELLANEOUS    CONSIDERATIONS. 

of  Rome,  and  concludes  that  she  is  the  masterpiece  of  human 
wisdom.  That  she  is  a  masterpiece  of  wisdom,  there  can  be  no 
doubt ;  and  the  only  question  is  whether  it  is  human  or  divine. 
If  human,  it  is  the  most  wonderful  of  all  human  institutions. 
But  whether  human- or  divine,  that  wisdom  is  just  what  we 
should  expect  to  find  in  the  work  of  Christ.  We  should  natu- 
rally expect  the  same  unity,  consistency,  and  durability,  in  any 
true  system.  And  where  we  do  not  find  all  these  qualities,  we 
may  safely  conclude  that  the  true  Church  is  not  there. 

And  there  is  certainly  something  most  extraordinary  in  the 
history  of  this  venerable  old  institution.  If  she  ever  did  possess 
an  innovating  spirit,  and  did  once  taste  the  sweets  of  its  novel- 
ties, how  completely  has  she  cast  it  aside,  and  abandoned  that 
which  was  so  bewitching  to  her  at  one  period,  and  has  ever  been 
so  bewitching  to  her  enemies !  How  difficult  for  a  Church, 
once  accustomed  to  change,  to  entirely  abandon  that  habit  for 
the  opposite  one  of  permanency  !  Has  Protestantism  done  this  ? 
The  very  admission  of  the  attribute  of  reformability  in  a  Church, 
makes  reforms  interminable.  For  how  can  truth  be  reforma- 
ble  ?  And  how  can  the  true  Church  be  reformable  ?  And  how 
can  the  true  Church  admit  that  she  is  reformable,  contrary  to 
the  fact  ?  Would  she  not  admit  a  falsehood  ?  And  to  admit 
that  a  Church  may  be  the  true  Church,  and  yet  not  know  it, 
would  be  equally  erroneous.  What  sort  of  a  true  Church 
would  that  be  that  did  not  know  herself?  that  did  not  know 
the  true  faith?  And  whenever  a  Church  concedes  that  she 
can  only  say  she  thinks  she  is  right,  but  if  not  right  now,  that 
her  theory  permits  her  to  reform  her  faith  consistently  with  her 
creed  itself,  she  at  once  admits  an  infirmity  that  never  did  and 
never  can  be  found  in  the  true  Church.  It  would  seem  clear 
that  no  Church  that  ever  did  change  her  faith,  or  that  admits 
it  to  be  reformable  at  all,  can  be  the  true  Church  of  Christ,  the 
pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth.  A  reformable  pillar  and  a  change- 
able ground  of  truth  !  Who  can  form  any  conception  of  such  a 
thing  ? 

And  upon  the  supposition  that  the  Catholic  Church  is  not 
the  true  Church,  how  can  we  account  for  the  fact  that  she  has 
withstood  all  the  storms  of  time,  while  of  the  numerous  sects 
that  arose  before  the  Reformation,  so  few  traces  remain  ?  If 


MISCELLANEOUS   CONSIDERATIONS.  T35 

she  was  false  as  well  as  they,  why  did  she  not  share  their  fate  ? 
How  did  she  happen  to  possess  so  much  unity,  so  much  wisdom, 
and  so  much  tenacity  of  life,  while  they,  numerous  as  they  were, 
vanished,  one  after  another,  from  the  map  of  existence  ?  Why 
could  none  of  them  possess  the  human  wisdom  mentioned  by 
Macaulay  ?  And  those  of  them  which  composed  the  alleged 
chain  of  Protestant  succession — the  Novatians,  the  Donatists, 
the  Paulicians,  and  others — why  did  they  flourish  and  fall? 
Did  the  true  Church  possess  less  wisdom,  less  permanency,  less 
tenacity  of  life,  than  false  Churches  ?  And  out  of  so  many  ene- 
mies, how  did  it  happen  that  the  Roman  Church  still  stands, 
when  they  are  gone  ?  She  is  found  at  all  times,  and  in  all 
places ;  but  where  are  they  ?  They  are  among  the  things  that 
were :  she  is. 

It  is  very  true  that  the  Old  Church,  during  the  long  course 
of  her  career,  has  had  her  enemies  and  trials,  without  and  with- 
in. And  these  enemies  have  been  numerous  and  powerful,  and 
these  trials  so  severe  that  it  may  be  said  that,  to  all  appearance, 
she  was  gone,  and,  in  fact,  almost  gone.  History  tells  many  a 
sad  tale  of  her  sufferings.  But  the  most  remarkable  feature  in 
this  sad  but  glorious  history  is,  that  these  formidable,  and  to 
human  appearances,  irresistible  enemies,  never  could  proceed 
beyond  almost,  and  never  did  reach  entire,  destruction.  This 
has  always  been  the  fate  of  the  Church — trials,  sufferings,  and 
triumphs.  It  was  so  in  the  beginning.  Judas  betrayed  his 
Master,  Peter  denied  Him,  and  the  rest  forsook  Him  and  fled, 
and  He  was  crucified  and  buried.  The  religion  of  Jesus,  the 
despised  Nazarine,  was,  to  all  human  appearances,  exterminated. 
Even  the  apostles  lost  faith  for  the  moment.  The  Jews  thought 
they  had  made  sure  work  of  it.  They  sealed  the  sepulchre,  and 
put  a  guard  over  it  to  prevent  even  the  pretence  of  a  resurrec- 
tion. But  Christ  would,  and  did,  rise  again. 

And  so  it  has  ever  been  with  His  Old  Church.  Her  entire 
destruction  has  often  been  threatened,  but  it  has  not  yet  been 
accomplished.  ^  The  thing  seems  impossible.  Her  grave  has 
often  been  dug,  in  imagination,  and  her  enemies  have  as  often 
supposed  that  she  was  dead  and  buried ;  but  still  she  would 
rise  again.  At  the  very  moment  when  she  was  thought  to  bo 
the  weakest,  she  was,  in  fact,  the  strongest.  Wonderful  vital- 


736  MISCELLANEOUS    CONSIDERATIONS. 

ity !      Glorious  invincibility !      Her  enemies  could  die.      She 
could  not. 

And  since  the  alleged  Reformation,  her  destruction  has 
been  often  threatened,  but  only  threatened.  It  is  always  in  the 
power  of  her  enemies  to  threaten.  A  few  years  after  the  dawn 
of  that  event,  the  Turks  made  renewed  and  mighty  efforts  to 
conquer  Europe  ;  and  Luther,  at  the  time,  advised  his  followers 
to  refrain  from  opposing  the  Turks,  until  the  Papacy  should  be 
destroyed.  Under  these  circumstances,  every  thing  seemed 
suspended  upon  the  fate  of  one  battle.  The  great  battle  of  Le- 
punto  was  fought  between  the  Mohammedans  and  Catholics, 
and  the  Turks  were  vanquished.  When  the  followers  of  Lu- 
ther, under  the  Landgrave  of  Hesse,  rebelled  against  the  govern- 
ment of  Charles  the  Yth,  the  battle  of  the  Elbe  declared  in  favor 
of  the  Emperor.  Afterwards  the  great  Gustavus,  that  thunder- 
bolt of  war,  whose  career  threatened  the  entire  destruction  of 
the  Catholic  Church,  was  slain  at  the  battle  of  Lutzen,  and  the 
Church  again  triumphed.  Still  later,  and  during  the  French 
Revolution,  it  was  thought  the  days  of  the  Church  were  num- 
bered, and  the  notes  of  triumph  were  already  sounded.  But 
Napoleon  appeared,  and  the  Church  rose  again.  And  when 
this  great  man  oppressed  the  Church,  others  put  him  down. 
And  so  it  has  ever  been  in  the  history  of  this  Old,  but  invinci- 
ble Church.  Difficulty  after  difficulty — trial  after  trial — she 
has  always  met  and  overcome. 

And  these  stern  and  gloomy  trials — but  glorious  triumphs — 
only  increase  our  faith  in  the  stability  of  this  mighty  Old  Church. 
Is  there  any  virtue  without  temptation  ?  Any  fidelity  without 
a  trial  ?  Any  victory  without  a  struggle  ?  Must  not  the  true 
Church  fight,  if  she  would  reign  ?  And  if  she  fights,  must  she 
not  bleed  ?  And  if  she  expects  to  gain  great  victories,  let  her 
trials  be  severe.  So  much  the  better.  Let  her  "  come  up 
through  great  tribulation,"  but  let  her  come  up.  She  has  al- 
ways done  it.  Will  she  not  still  do  it  ?  Is  she  not  able  ? 

These  trials — these  threatened  exterminations — give  Cath- 
olics no  uneasiness.  They  have  faith — unwavering  faith — in  the 
promises  of  Christ.  If  the  Church  be  not  protected  by  Christ, 
let  her  fail.  And  if  she  had  not  been  so  protected,  she  would 
have  failed  long  ago.  If  the  work  of  Christ,  she  must  and  will 


MISCELLANEOUS   CONSIDERATIONS.  737 

live  on,  though  her  trials  and  sufferings  be  still  more  severe. 
Let  them  come,  so  she  but  gain  the  victory.  As  her  old  mar- 
tyr, the  holy  Ignatius,  said :  "  Fire  and  the  Cross,  the  assaults 
of  beasts,  the  rending  of  my  bones,  the  laceration  of  my  lirnbs, 
the  crushing  of  my  whole  frame,  dire  tortures  of  Satan,  let  them 
come  upon  me,  so  that  I  but  go  to  Christ." 

And  I  confess  that  I  love  a  Church  that  has  overcome  all 
these  trials.  Her  sufferings  have  been  intense.  So  they  should 
be.  Shall  the  true  Church  have  a  primrose  path  on  earth,  and 
also  a  golden  path  in  heaven  f  Will  not  her  glory  be  in  pro- 
portion to  her  sufferings  and  trials  ?  And  her  victories  in  the 
past  but  assure  me  of  her  victories  in  the  future.  The  good 
ship  that  has  triumphantly  rode  out  many  a  severe  storm,  and 
is  yet  staunch  and  tight,  is  the  more  to  be  trusted.  The  vet- 
eran soldier  that  has  fought  on  many  a  battle-field,  and  wears 
nonorable  scars,  and  is  yet  strong  and  vigorous,  is  but  the  more 
reliable.  And  the  Church  expects  trials,  and  would  not  escape 
them  if  she  did  not  expect  them.  It  is  her  vocation,  her  busi- 
ness, to  meet  and  overcome  them.  Let  her  fulfil  her  duty — the 
very  purpose  of  her  creation. 

§  8.   Conclusion. 

In  his  debate  with  Mr.  Rice,  Mr.  Campbell  says : 

"  Catholic  parents  do  their  work  more  faithfully  than  most 
of  the  Protestants,  and  the  consequence  is,  it  is  generally  more 
difficult  to  convert  a  Romanist  to  any  Protestant  profession, 
than  a  Protestant  to  the  Roman  persuasion."  (Debate  317.) 

If  it  be  true,  as  stated,  that  "  Catholic  parents  do  their  work 
more  faithfully  than  most  of  the  Protestants,"  it  does  show  their 
greater  sincerity,  faith,  and  devotion.  And  these  are  most 
commendable  traits  in  the  Christian  character.  The  exertions 
of  a  parent  to  instruct  his  children  in  the  religion  he  himself  be- 
lieves, will  bear  a  just  proportion  to  the  fixedness  and  import- 
ance of  his  own  faith. 

But  the  greater  difficulty  of  converting  a  Catholic  than  a 
Protestant,  does  not  arise  solely,  nor  mainly,  from  the  cause  as- 
signed by  Mr.  Campbell,  but  from  others.  The  great  Dr. 
Johnson  said  : 

"  A  man  who  is  converted   from  Protestantism  to  Popery 


738  MISCELLANEOUS    CONSIDERATIONS. 

may  be  sincere  ;  he  parts  with  nothing  ;  he  is  only  superadding 
to  what  he  already  had.  But  a  convert  from  Popery  to  Prot- 
estantism gives  up  so  much  of  what  he  has  held  as  sacred  as 
any  thing  that  he  retains ;  there  is  so  much  laceration  of  mind 
in  such  a  conversion,  that  it  can  hardly  be  sincere  and  lasting." 
(Boswell,  A.  D.  1769.)  And  the  biographer  himself  adds: 
"The  truth  of  this  reflection  may  be  confirmed  by  many  and 
eminent  instances,  some  of  which  will  occur  to  most  of  my 
readers." 

And  there  certainly  is  a  great  deal  of  truth,  though  not  the 
whole  truth,  in  this  reflection.  The  convert  from  the  Catholic 
Church  seems  conscious  that  he  is  embracing  an  inferior  and 
lower  grade  of  faith,  and  adopting  a  colder  and  more  suspicious 
estimate  of  human  veracity.  He  cuts  himself  loose  from  the 
holy  ties  that  bound  him  to  the  suffering  martyr-Church  of  old. 
He  severs  all  connection  with  the  apostles,  except  that  hidden 
one,  which  is  supposed  to  be  buried  in  the  darkness  and  silence 
of  the  dim  distant  ages  of  the  past.  He  leaves  the  sweet  com- 
rnunion  of  saints,  which  combines  the  children  of  the  true  faith 
everywhere,  in  every  age,  in  one  holy  brotherhood.  What  are 
the  heroic  martyrs  and  saints  of  old  to  him  ?  They  are  now  be- 
come "  mystics  and  visionaries."  What  to  him  is  now  the 
great  and  universal  Church  of  the  mighty  past  ?  "  The  Man 
of  Sin."  Who  were  the  clergy  of  the  Old  Church — that  Church 
which  won  the  world  to  Christianity  ?  To  him  they  are  now 
become  impostors,  who  betrayed  the  faith  of  Christ.  And  the 
laity,  who  were  they  ?  Simple  dupes.  In  short,  to  him  what 
is  the  Christian  past  ?  A  blurred  and  blotted  page  for  evil, 
and  a  practical  blank  for  good.  It  is  a  melancholy  view  of 
Christianity — a  humiliating  estimate  of  human  veracity — a 
mighty  accusation  against  humanity  itself.  No  wonder  it  pro- 
duces-so  much  "  laceration  of  mind." 

But  it  is  not  so  with  the  convert  to  the  Catholic  Faith.  He 
is  conscious  that  he  has  embraced  a  higher  grade  of  faith,  has 
been  brought  into  closer  and  holier  communion  with  the  unseen 
world,  and  has  adopted  a  more  just  and  charitable  estimate  of 
human  veracity.  He  has  taken  a  step  towards  the  Celestial 
City,  from  the  low  murky  valleys  of  discord,  where  the  fogs  of 
error  do  love  to  dwell.  He  shakes  hands  with  the  brethren  of 


MISCKLLANUOU8    CONSIDERATIONS.  739 

every  kindred,  name,  and  tongue.  He  worships  with  the  peo 
pie  of  every  nation.  He  joins  his  prayers  with  those  who  speak 
the  varied  languages  of  earth.  On  every  shore,  in  every  land, 
beneath  every  sky,  and  in  every  city,  he  meets  his  brethren  of 
the  universal  Church.  He  is  at  home  everywhere,  and  bows 
down  with  the  millions  who  have  worshipped,  and  still  worship, 
at  the  same  altar,  and  hold  the  same  faith. 

But  not  only  so.  He  looks  back  over  the  pages  of  past  his- 
tory, and  ascends  by  a  plain,  visible,  and  unbroken  chain  to  the 
apostolic  day.  He  has  no  chasms  to  leap,  no  deserts  to  cross. 
At  every  step  in  this  progress  he  finds  the  same  Old  Church — 
the  same  faith — the  same  worship  still  pre-eminent  in  the  Chris- 
tian world.  He  sees  the  rise  and  fall  of  empires  and  sects  ;  but 
the  same  Old  Church  always  pre-eminent.  The  records  of  the 
past  are  with  him.  He  has  the  sanction  of  antiquity.  Time 
tells  for  him  a  glorious  story.  He  meets  with  myriads  of  breth- 
ren all  along  the  slumbering  ages.  The  old  martyrs  and  saints 
are  his  brethren.  He  claims  companionship  with  them.  Their 
memories  are  beloved  by  him.  And  Blandina,  the  poor  slave, 
but  noblest  of  martyrs,  was  his  sister.  And  old  Ignatius,  and 
Polycarp,  and  Justin,  and  Irenaeus,  are  also  his  brethren.  And 
she,  the  humblest  of  the  humble — the  purest  of  the  pure — 
the  stainless  Virgin  Mother  of  his  Lord,  whom  all  generations 
call  "  blessed,"  is  revered  by  him  as  the  noblest  of  creatures. 
And  the  old  apostles — the  noble  and  the  true — the  holy  and 
the  just — the  despised  and  persecuted — they,  .too,  are  his  breth- 
ren. In  short,  the  saints  and  martyrs  of  the  olden  time,  held 
the  same  faith,  worshipped  at  the  same  altar,  and  used  the  same 
form  of  worship,  that  he  does.  He  venerates  and  loves  their 
memory,  admires  their  virtues,  calls  them  brethren,  and  asks 
their  prayers  in  heaven.  He  has  no  accusations  to  bring  against 
them — no  crimes  to  lay  to  their  charge. 

But  besides  all  this,  his  faith  is  sustained  by  a  logical  power, 
and  a  Scriptural  proo£  that  cannot  be  fairly  met  and  confuted. 
It  is  sustained  by  every  plain  and  luminous  principle  upon 
which  society  and  government  are  founded.  His  reason,  his 
common  sense,  the  best  feelings  of  his  nature,  the  holiest  im- 
pulses of  his  heart,  all  satisfy  him  beyond  a  doubt,  that  he  is  in 
the  right. 


74:0  MISCELLANEOUS   CONSIDERATIONS. 

It  is  not  at  all  surprising,  then,  that  it  is  so  difficult  to  con- 
vert a  Catholic  to  Protestantism,  even  when  in  the  vigor  of  life ; 
and  so  difficult,  that  it  never  has  been  done,  at  the  hour  of 
death.  For  there  is  no  known  instance  where  a  Catholic  changed 
his  faith  upon  a  dying  bed  ;  while  thousands  of  Protestants  have 
done  so.  If  a  Catholic  can  live  a  faithful  member  of  his 
Church,  he  can  always  die  in  it.  In  that  awful  hour — that 
honest  hour — 

"  When  all  the  blandishments  of  life  are  gone." 
"  When  tired  dissimulation  drops  her  mask, 
And  real  and  apparent  are  the  same  ;  " 

when  eternity,  with  all  its  mighty  consequences,  rolls  up  its 
endless  proportions  before  the  dying  vision — Ah !  then,  no 
Catholic  asks  to  change  his  faith !  Oh  give  me  the  last  sacra- 
ments of  the  Church  !  Let  me  die  in  her  holy  communion ! 
Let  me  be  buried  in  consecrated  ground !  Let  my  brethren 
pi-ay  for  me ! 

But  there  is  still  another  most  weighty  consideration  with 
him.  He  examines  carefully  the  doctrines  of  his  Church.  From 
the  first  to  the  last  article  of  faith,  they  are  as  consistent  with 
each  other  as  truth  itself  could  be.  There  is  no  discrepancy — 
no  contradiction.  The  whole  theory,  in  all  its  parts,  is  perfectly 
consistent  with  itself.  He  finds  few,  if  any,  to  deny  this  entire 
consistency  of  parts  with  the  whole.  He  knows  that  every  part 
of  a  true  system  must  be  consistent  with  each,  and  with  all. 
No  one  truth  jars  with  another.  There  can  be  no  enmity,  no 
discord,  in  a  true  system.  But  he  knows  it  is  exceedingly  diffi- 
cult to  find  this  consistency  and  harmony  in  a  theory  of  pure 
error ;  and  still  more  difficult  to  find  it  in  a  mixed  theory  of 
truth  and  error.  And  he  cannot  understand  how  the  alleged 
additions  to  the  faith  could  have  been  made,  and  so  nicely  fitted 
to  the  true  system,  as  to  be  perfectly  consistent  with  it.  He  finds 
it  conceded  that  his  Church  has  the  fundamental  truths  of  Chris- 
tianity, and  that  her  faith  is  consistent  throughout ;  and  he  can- 
not see  how  this  consistency  could  be  found  between  the  alleged 
added  errors  and  the  old  truths  ;  and  he  is  forced  to  conclude, 
that  a  theory  so  consistent  in  all  its  parts  and  admitted  to  con- 
tain many  truths,  must  be  true  in  every  particular. 


MISCELLANEOUS   CONSIDERATIONS.  741 

I  will  close  this  work  in  the  words  of  that  distinguished 
French  writer,  La  Bruyere  : 

"  If  ray  religion  be  false,  it  is,  I  must  own,  the  most  artful 
snare  that  could  possibly  be  devised.  It  is  impossible  to  avoid 
falling  into  it  and  being  caught.  What  majesty,  what  magnifi- 
cence, in  its  mysteries !  What  coherency,  what  connection,  in 
all  its  doctrines  !  What  sound  reason !  What  candor  !  What 
innocence  of  morals !  What  an  invincible  and  overwhelming 
body  of  evidence  is  given  successively,  and  for  three  whole  cen- 
turies, by  millions  of  the  most  learned  and  most  considerate 
persons  then  in  the  world,  and  whom  the  conviction  of  one  and 
the  same  truth  supported  in  exile,  in  fetters,  at  the  approach 
of  death,  and  under  the  most  cruel  torments." 


THE    END. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 

Return  to  desk  from  which  borrowed. 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


FEB 


' 


HOc'56jL| 
REC'D  LD 

DEC  12  1956 

23;,lar'59AJ 


APR  2>  1959 


REC'D 


MAR  I 
UNIV.  OF  CAUF 


NOV  0  2  1995 

:|RCUUTION  DEPT. 


LD  21-100m-9,'47(A5702sl6)476 


LOAN 


„  BERK. 


M5S5513 


E SUPPLIED    BY 
>VEN  BOOKHUNTERS 

80X22, NEWYORKII.N.Y. 


